3 ms·
There's nothing squishy about string theory. The line between currently untested hypotheses and those supported by reliable experimental results is quite clear
by stult 10y ago
There's nothing squishy about string theory. The line between currently untested hypotheses and those supported by reliable experimental results is quite clear in physics. You frequently see journalists representing the results of unreplicated garbage psychology experiments as scientific fact yet you never hear anyone claiming string theory is any such thing.
We know how to test string theory but we lack the ability to generate sufficient energy to do so. We don't even know how to reliably test many of the theories generated by the social sciences. That's the difference between a robust science and a squishy one: effective methods for generating and testing hypotheses. String theory is part of the "generating" process. It makes falsifiable and (theoretically) testable predictions. There's no reason that experimental results are required for that process, so long as everyone is clear about the hypotheses not being experimentally supported yet. The separation between theoretical and experimental physics is particularly necessary because testing quantum physics hypotheses involves multi-billion dollar investments in particle colliders. Yet once that investment is made, the experiments are effective at testing the theories and the theories are effective at being tested by experiments. You can't say the same about the squishier end of the scientific spectrum.
- jhbadger 10y agoThe comment I was responding to was specifically calling out biology as "squishy". As a computational biologist myself, I have experience in getting my purely computational papers rejected before I learned that you have to collaborate with experimentalists to get a really good paper.
- xaa 10y ago(Fellow CB here) I have had the same experience. Although I think this phenomenon is because of a heavily empirical bias in biology, not because the experimental data that is usually paired with comp bio models is actually all that useful in supporting the model. "Generate hypothesis with CB and present experimental data that is mostly irrelevant to it" seems to be a good recipe for getting Nature papers, actually.
- 77pt77 10y ago> because testing quantum physics hypotheses involves multi-billion dollar investments in particle colliders You're conflating particle physics (which does need "multi-billion dollar investments") with quantum physics which sometimes only needs well designed table top experiments.
- jcranmer 10y ago> You frequently see journalists representing the results of unreplicated garbage psychology experiments as scientific fact yet you never hear anyone claiming string theory is any such thing. Supersymmetry and string theory have long been presented to the general public as "theoretical physics awaiting experimental validation." See, e.g., the Elegant Universe. Hell the fact that the LHC hasn't reported a new particle where most supersymmetry theorists expected one to be has prompted a rush towards moving goalposts to keep supersymmetry alive. That's not the sign of a robust theory.