3 ms·

The problem with this theory is that it's factually false. Physicists simply do not behave that way. A handful do, but physicists in general are much more princ

by curi 19y ago

The problem with this theory is that it's factually false. Physicists simply do not behave that way. A handful do, but physicists in general are much more principled than most other specialists in other fields, which is why physics has been so successful. PS you don't have to attack science to defend religion

ashu 19y ago
Is string theory also 'factually false' according your definition?
- curi 19y ago
  i wouldn't call string theory factually false yet -- that's too controversial, and one shouldn't use the word 'fact' except when it's quite clear. the data about whether physicists act like priests is not controversial so using 'fact' is ok there. further, i was emphasizing the problem with the 'physicists are like priests' theory is not the explanation -- it's plausible in the abstract and has a certain kind of appeal -- the only problem is that the factual data doesn't support it. FYI my best theory is that string theory is false.
  - ashu 19y ago
    Ah, thanks for the clarification. Didn't realize you were talking about the physicist vs. priest theory.
- ardit33 19y ago
  I don't say it is false, but there is a huge camp on the physics community saying, as long as all those theories are not testable in any way with our current techonology, then they are just philosophical theories, and not science. Remember, hard science is based on observation, and testing. When I say testing, means that they are proven correct for some kind of settings. Just as Newton's Gravitational Law, is correct for most human (small, or large scale), but it is incorrect for the very very tiny (quantum scale), or it may be incorrect for the very very large. http://www.teachersdomain.org/resources/phy03/sci/phys/fund/theoryorphil/index.html http://www.teachersdomain.org/resources/phy03/sci/phys/fund/...
  - rms 19y ago
    >are not testable in any way with our current techonology It'd be cool if we hit singularity soon and build a planet size particle accelerator.
  - curi 19y ago
    some things some physicists do aren't empirically-based, yes that's correct. whether you call that "science" is a matter of terminology, but the important thing is whether it's high or low quality thinking, and the atmosphere and ethos has high or low quality discussion and criticism. i would say it is science, because the most important part of science is not the experiments, but the attitudes associated with science. do all the experiments you want, and without "scientific rigor" you will not get anywhere.
  - curi 19y ago
    Regarding that link, in the "background essay": The first sentence misuses the word "revolutionary". The second sentence misuses the term "all aspects". The third sentence misquotes the general position of string theorists (I think) by misusing the term "explanation". Either way, it's making a reductionist mistake. The fourth sentence (second paragraph) suggests that the biggest obstacle to acceptance of string theory is that it's weird, not whether it's true. This is false. If there was no case that string theory were true, then it's adherents would give it up, and it would never be able to gain acceptance. The fifth sentence misuses the word "detect". The sixth sentence (third paragraph), which I think was your point, is ... well let's see how they support it in the remaining sentences. The seventh sentence makes both inductivist and justificationist mistakes before the semi-colon. Then misuses the word "suggests" after the semi-colon. The eighth sentence restates the claim from the sixth. The ninth (last) sentence badly misuses the word "explains" and the term "scientifically valid". It's also terrible English.
ardit33 19y ago
I am not defending religion, as I am an atheist. I think god doesn't exist, but I just can't prove it, as there is no rational way to do it. Hard core atheists just "know" that god doesn't exist. The fact is that a theory, is just a mathematical proof based on assumptions (which may be wrong), which need to be proven in real life by testing. Testing some of these proofs is very very expensive and usually done by goverment grants, or in brand name universities with lots of money from private donors. So, if you are a no name scientist, it will be harder for your theory to be taken in consideration. And some of these theory, such as string theory, are almost impossible to proove, with our current technology. Almost like it is impossible to prove that good doesn't exist, yet you can't really prove that good exists. Physicist, are human, just like everybody else, jealousy, competition, wanting of fame are all part of a normal human being. Saying physicist are beyond that, is simple false. As a physics minor, who has friends doing phd programs, I can say that the competition for grant money is fierce. One striking porperty of physicts: They know they are right, and that they are better than you. (assuming you didnt' do physics). It is just like that. Once you hang our with some of them, you will know.
- curi 19y ago
  i know physicists, but i don't know any physicists who act like that. there is a reason physics has been so successful. you haven't explained an alternative for how that happened, besides physicists actually doing something right. though certainly i agree universities and their grant money setups are good at corrupting people, and it happens sometimes. regarding religion: whether you are an atheist or not, you gave a defense of religion by claiming it's no worse than science. but perhaps what i should say to you is: you don't have to defend religion, to attack science. leave religion out of it.
anupamkapoor 19y ago
> but physicists in general are much more principled than most other specialists in other fields have a look at "empire of the stars" to see how this is not true. briefly it talks about how arthur-eddington stymied subramanya-chandrashekar's theories (on black holes). calling it "stellar buffoonery" , he ended up hindering the progress of astrophysics for almost 4 decades.

by curi 19y ago

ashu 19y ago

Is string theory also 'factually false' according your definition?

curi 19y ago
i wouldn't call string theory factually false yet -- that's too controversial, and one shouldn't use the word 'fact' except when it's quite clear. the data about whether physicists act like priests is not controversial so using 'fact' is ok there. further, i was emphasizing the problem with the 'physicists are like priests' theory is not the explanation -- it's plausible in the abstract and has a certain kind of appeal -- the only problem is that the factual data doesn't support it. FYI my best theory is that string theory is false.
- ashu 19y ago
  Ah, thanks for the clarification. Didn't realize you were talking about the physicist vs. priest theory.
ardit33 19y ago
I don't say it is false, but there is a huge camp on the physics community saying, as long as all those theories are not testable in any way with our current techonology, then they are just philosophical theories, and not science. Remember, hard science is based on observation, and testing. When I say testing, means that they are proven correct for some kind of settings. Just as Newton's Gravitational Law, is correct for most human (small, or large scale), but it is incorrect for the very very tiny (quantum scale), or it may be incorrect for the very very large. http://www.teachersdomain.org/resources/phy03/sci/phys/fund/theoryorphil/index.html http://www.teachersdomain.org/resources/phy03/sci/phys/fund/...
- rms 19y ago
  >are not testable in any way with our current techonology It'd be cool if we hit singularity soon and build a planet size particle accelerator.
- curi 19y ago
  some things some physicists do aren't empirically-based, yes that's correct. whether you call that "science" is a matter of terminology, but the important thing is whether it's high or low quality thinking, and the atmosphere and ethos has high or low quality discussion and criticism. i would say it is science, because the most important part of science is not the experiments, but the attitudes associated with science. do all the experiments you want, and without "scientific rigor" you will not get anywhere.
- curi 19y ago
  Regarding that link, in the "background essay": The first sentence misuses the word "revolutionary". The second sentence misuses the term "all aspects". The third sentence misquotes the general position of string theorists (I think) by misusing the term "explanation". Either way, it's making a reductionist mistake. The fourth sentence (second paragraph) suggests that the biggest obstacle to acceptance of string theory is that it's weird, not whether it's true. This is false. If there was no case that string theory were true, then it's adherents would give it up, and it would never be able to gain acceptance. The fifth sentence misuses the word "detect". The sixth sentence (third paragraph), which I think was your point, is ... well let's see how they support it in the remaining sentences. The seventh sentence makes both inductivist and justificationist mistakes before the semi-colon. Then misuses the word "suggests" after the semi-colon. The eighth sentence restates the claim from the sixth. The ninth (last) sentence badly misuses the word "explains" and the term "scientifically valid". It's also terrible English.

ardit33 19y ago

I am not defending religion, as I am an atheist. I think god doesn't exist, but I just can't prove it, as there is no rational way to do it. Hard core atheists just "know" that god doesn't exist. The fact is that a theory, is just a mathematical proof based on assumptions (which may be wrong), which need to be proven in real life by testing. Testing some of these proofs is very very expensive and usually done by goverment grants, or in brand name universities with lots of money from private donors. So, if you are a no name scientist, it will be harder for your theory to be taken in consideration. And some of these theory, such as string theory, are almost impossible to proove, with our current technology. Almost like it is impossible to prove that good doesn't exist, yet you can't really prove that good exists. Physicist, are human, just like everybody else, jealousy, competition, wanting of fame are all part of a normal human being. Saying physicist are beyond that, is simple false. As a physics minor, who has friends doing phd programs, I can say that the competition for grant money is fierce. One striking porperty of physicts: They know they are right, and that they are better than you. (assuming you didnt' do physics). It is just like that. Once you hang our with some of them, you will know.

curi 19y ago
i know physicists, but i don't know any physicists who act like that. there is a reason physics has been so successful. you haven't explained an alternative for how that happened, besides physicists actually doing something right. though certainly i agree universities and their grant money setups are good at corrupting people, and it happens sometimes. regarding religion: whether you are an atheist or not, you gave a defense of religion by claiming it's no worse than science. but perhaps what i should say to you is: you don't have to defend religion, to attack science. leave religion out of it.

anupamkapoor 19y ago

> but physicists in general are much more principled than most other specialists in other fields have a look at "empire of the stars" to see how this is not true. briefly it talks about how arthur-eddington stymied subramanya-chandrashekar's theories (on black holes). calling it "stellar buffoonery" , he ended up hindering the progress of astrophysics for almost 4 decades.