4 ms·
It's not useful to speculate about things that are unfalsifiable. That's why Penrose wants these things to be observable traces from before the big bang.
by warmfuzzykitten 6y ago
It's not useful to speculate about things that are unfalsifiable. That's why Penrose wants these things to be observable traces from before the big bang.
- nwienert 6y agoIt seems not only has he made multiple predictions based on this theory, but he also is actively publishing research showing it may be true. Where do you get unfalsifiable from? There’s literally falsifiable claims being made.
- gridlockd 6y agoThere are a lot more books sold on speculative fiction than real astronomical insights. Clearly, such speculation serves a purpose and must therefore be considered useful.
- dumpsterdiver 6y ago> It's not useful to speculate about things that are unfalsifiable. I disagree. While such speculation obviously won't produce immediately useful data, where would we be today if noone had ever speculated about something which at the time could not be falsified? Case in point: the initial speculation on the existence of germs, which at the time was unfalsifiable. (Edit: adding refs) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease From the arcticle: "By the early nineteenth century, smallpox vaccination was commonplace in Europe, though doctors were unaware of how it worked or how to extend the principle to other diseases." So doctors were saving lives even though they had no idea exactly how or why it worked. They could neither prove nor disprove why it seemed to work, it simply did. The fact that it was unfalsifiable had nothing to do with the truth of the matter - it still saved lives.
- dTal 6y agoI think there's a difference between untestable in practice, right now, and unfalsifiable even in theory. The latter case can never hold any practical value.
- imcoconut 6y agoI think the point dumpsterdiver is making is that determining what is falsifiable or not is context/time dependent. As our understanding of reality changes over time so does our definition of what can be falsifiable.
- garbagetime 6y agoWhat's an example of something that's unfalsifiable in theory?
- pantulis 6y agoThe existence of God.
- garbagetime 6y agoFalsifiable by the observance that there is no God. If we get a view of the supernatural it might be clear that there is no God.
- dspillett 6y agoWill be disproven by the existence of bablefish. Already has been in less backwards parts of the galaxy than ours.
- pantulis 6y agoSorry didn’t understand the bablefish reference, why does that disprove the existence of god? (I could define myself as an atheist anyway so this is really a non issue for me)
- staticman2 6y agoIt's a reference to the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy novels.
- 6y ago