3 ms·

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 te

by 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.

by ardit33 19y ago

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.