3 ms·

Science Is Not About Getting More “Likes”

aeternum 7y ago
The currency of science should be experimental validations. That probably reached a peak 50-100 years ago. Unfortunately now many experiments & studies are so complicated that they cannot be reproduced, and instead we use peer review, which is basically an "appeal to authority".
gus_massa 7y ago
> The mathematical constructions of supersymmetry, string theory, Hawking radiation, anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory (AdS/CFT) and the multiverse are currently considered irrefutable and self-evident by the mainstream of theoretical physics, even without experimental evidence to support them. What?! No!! Supersymmetry: It's a nice theory. It's a pity that the experiments to find a low mass supersymmetric particle failed (because the low mass supersymmetric particle doesn't exist). There are some hopes that a heavier particle exist. Still, until the particle is found it is not irrefutable. String theory: There is a huge chunk op people working in this. They promised to call us when they got an experiment that can be done with the current technology. Most of us are just waiting, and working in other topic meanwhile. For some reason the press love it and it gets an overrepresented coverage. Still, it is not irrefutable or self evident. Hawking radiation: Yes, it is true. Yes, we don't have experimental support. It has a strong theoretical foundation using common theories with good experimental support. It's self evident. Anyway, some direct experimental support would be nice. Anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory (AdS/CFT): It's a model that simplifies a lot of calculations. It enable amazing equivalence of thing that are very difficult to calculate with a related thing that is easy to calculate. Last time I hear it was presented as an approximation, not the real world. Sometimes a good approximation is good enough to get a good approximated result that can't be calculated directly. It's not irrefutable because it is not even true. The multiverse: There are a few versions. The most popular is the multiverse interpretation that is just another interpretation of quantum mechanic. It is equivalent to the Copenhagen interpretation, and the shut up and calculate interpretation, and other interpretations. Since all have the exact experimental results, it's not posible to refute one but not the others. The opinion is divided. (There are other multiverses theories, but none is so popular to call it irrefutable.)

The currency of science should be experimental validations. That probably reached a peak 50-100 years ago. Unfortunately now many experiments & studies are so complicated that they cannot be reproduced, and instead we use peer review, which is basically an "appeal to authority".

gus_massa 7y ago

> The mathematical constructions of supersymmetry, string theory, Hawking radiation, anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory (AdS/CFT) and the multiverse are currently considered irrefutable and self-evident by the mainstream of theoretical physics, even without experimental evidence to support them. What?! No!! Supersymmetry: It's a nice theory. It's a pity that the experiments to find a low mass supersymmetric particle failed (because the low mass supersymmetric particle doesn't exist). There are some hopes that a heavier particle exist. Still, until the particle is found it is not irrefutable. String theory: There is a huge chunk op people working in this. They promised to call us when they got an experiment that can be done with the current technology. Most of us are just waiting, and working in other topic meanwhile. For some reason the press love it and it gets an overrepresented coverage. Still, it is not irrefutable or self evident. Hawking radiation: Yes, it is true. Yes, we don't have experimental support. It has a strong theoretical foundation using common theories with good experimental support. It's self evident. Anyway, some direct experimental support would be nice. Anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory (AdS/CFT): It's a model that simplifies a lot of calculations. It enable amazing equivalence of thing that are very difficult to calculate with a related thing that is easy to calculate. Last time I hear it was presented as an approximation, not the real world. Sometimes a good approximation is good enough to get a good approximated result that can't be calculated directly. It's not irrefutable because it is not even true. The multiverse: There are a few versions. The most popular is the multiverse interpretation that is just another interpretation of quantum mechanic. It is equivalent to the Copenhagen interpretation, and the shut up and calculate interpretation, and other interpretations. Since all have the exact experimental results, it's not posible to refute one but not the others. The opinion is divided. (There are other multiverses theories, but none is so popular to call it irrefutable.)