3 ms·

We have this problem in general in science at this point of time, probably because of the big scope of our modern theories. EG: We already consider "Dark Energ

by yulaow 9y ago

We have this problem in general in science at this point of time, probably because of the big scope of our modern theories. EG: We already consider "Dark Energy" a sort of made-up assumption to justify a model which, after recent observations was considered falsified. So, instead of focusing on others we decided to keep using it, we created a not-falsifiable nor testable assumption (dark energy indeed) and kept going with it, even if it violates everything Popper teach us. Honestly it seems to me that, especially in physics, too many people are just too much mentally involved in their own theory that they have an hard time just dropping it when it doesn't seem to work anymore.

dhimes 9y ago
Perhaps, but science is a human endeavor like any other and thus subject to human biases. I think a great example is the discovery of the neutrino. Particle tracks showed a clear violation of energy, momentum and angular momentum, but Pauli and others believed in these fundamental properties of the universe so strongly that he (they?) proposed a particle that was virtually undetectable to keep those properties. This was a non-scientific hypothesis at the time, but it told scientists the direction they needed to pursue in order to get to the point where the hypothesis could become scientific. Most argue that the discovery of the neutrino saved the fundamental conservation laws, but we should never lose sight of the fact that we still don't detect them in a very large percentage of events we record (we say simply that they are there, but interact weakly). One important measure of whether a hypothesis is likely going to be accepted as true in the future is that as we build better and more sensitive detectors we detect more outcomes favorable to the hypothesis. This is the way smart money bets when data are still hard to come by (see 'climate change').
- posterboy 9y ago
  > ... believed in these fundamental properties of the universe so strongly ... > This was a non-scientific hypothesis at the time, but it told scientists the direction they needed to pursue in order to get to the point where the hypothesis could become scientific. "What is Philosophy of Physics?"

by yulaow 9y ago

dhimes 9y ago

Perhaps, but science is a human endeavor like any other and thus subject to human biases. I think a great example is the discovery of the neutrino. Particle tracks showed a clear violation of energy, momentum and angular momentum, but Pauli and others believed in these fundamental properties of the universe so strongly that he (they?) proposed a particle that was virtually undetectable to keep those properties. This was a non-scientific hypothesis at the time, but it told scientists the direction they needed to pursue in order to get to the point where the hypothesis could become scientific. Most argue that the discovery of the neutrino saved the fundamental conservation laws, but we should never lose sight of the fact that we still don't detect them in a very large percentage of events we record (we say simply that they are there, but interact weakly). One important measure of whether a hypothesis is likely going to be accepted as true in the future is that as we build better and more sensitive detectors we detect more outcomes favorable to the hypothesis. This is the way smart money bets when data are still hard to come by (see 'climate change').

posterboy 9y ago
> ... believed in these fundamental properties of the universe so strongly ... > This was a non-scientific hypothesis at the time, but it told scientists the direction they needed to pursue in order to get to the point where the hypothesis could become scientific. "What is Philosophy of Physics?"