3 ms·
>>We exclude strings or other broken models only by consistently failing to collect evidence they are true Which is not a reason to consider them excluded. Th
by sgt101 8y ago
>>We exclude strings or other broken models only by consistently failing to collect evidence they are true
Which is not a reason to consider them excluded. There is no reason to believe in the unicorn, or strings it there are powerful predictive alternate theories that explain the observed facts. But science creates contingent knowledge, not truth, that is all.
- jerf 8y ago"Remember, we can build physics models based on, say, Loop Quantum Gravity that excludes strings and may seem to predict the universe correctly, but that does not logically prove that there are not also strings in the universe." - from just the previous sentence. Incidentally, that post gored some oxes, apparently. Despite the firm mathematical foundation I stand on with great confidence for the entire post, it's sitting at -2. Seems a lot of people have a very emotional reaction to hearing "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is untrue.