5 ms·

I think Sabine Hossenfelder is right. Random hypotheses (here particles) are not good science. I am not sure whether Popper is the right reference. Karl Poppe

I think Sabine Hossenfelder is right. Random hypotheses (here particles) are not good science. I am not sure whether Popper is the right reference. Karl Popper: "a theory should be considered scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable." (1) (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

jodrellblank 4y ago
As her Venn diagram showed, 'scientific' is a subset of 'falsifiable'. Scientific requires falsifiable, but falsifiable doesn't by itself imply scientific. 'In five minutes the Pacific Ocean will turn to liquid gold' is falsifiable but not scientific. Why would you predict that, what data does it align with, what model of matter and liquids does it work with, by what mechanism might it happen, why five minutes and not sooner or later, etc?
davrosthedalek 4y ago
They are not that random. They typically are motivated by some observation of something, for example discrepancies from Standard Model predictions, or obvious holes in the SM (like the Higgs). Yes, there a many, and people jump on many things which turn out to be noise. But "new particle" as the solution has a rather impressive track record: Atoms, Nuclei, Nucleons, Quarks, Neutrinos, Higgs. The list is not complete.
- hackandthink 4y ago
  OK. She detailed her point with the Higgs boson. There was an internal inconsistency and the Standard Model needed the Higgs boson. There may be different point of views: your particle is random but mine is a great idea and cleans up the theory. But I actually thought when listening to her talk: isn't it fine thinking about and looking for particles in the next energy range. (we spend money for so many stupid things, 50 * 10^9 Euros (next accelerator) is not so much money related to 500 million people)
  - davrosthedalek 4y ago
    I absolutely agree. The amount of money for a LHC upgrade isn't that crazy at all. I do not buy into the argument that we could fund other things instead. We could fund these other things anyway, if we want to, and not funding one project does not mean that something else is funded. Mainly in means the money will go into a different (non-science) pot.
somat 4y ago
A question on logic. Why is that second if needed? I often see the "if and only if"(iff) structure in logic. however I am never able to figure out how it is different than a single if. what exactly is the difference between the following three statements. a theory should be considered scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable. a theory should be considered scientific if it is falsifiable a theory should be considered scientific only if it is falsifiable
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  "A iff B" means that both "A if b" and "B if A" are true. On this case, it means that to be a theory, it has to be falsifiable, and anything that is falsifiable, is a theory.
- bigbillheck 4y ago
  It's not a 'second if' it's its own 'only if'.
jerf 4y ago
"Random hypotheses (here particles) are not good science." One of the points I expected when she was showing the graph of predictions and how they shift as we get more data is that while individual theorists may be making testable predictions, the sum total of the field and all the various predictions on offer ends up combining to produce a prediction of essentially everything. The net result is that you don't get much more than that out of the whole process. That's not 100% true; there is still an aspect of exploring what the math landscape permits. But it's much closer to 100% true than we should be comfortable with. Especially with the repeated history, the very repeated history, of some specific hypothesis being falsified (such as SUSY) and the reaction being to just move the goalposts. Again, individually, each such action may be justified, but taken as a collection of all of them, it becomes difficult to distinguish from the way that you can easily justify breaking the world into earth/air/water/fire elements; every time an observation seems to contradict a previous theory you just adjust the 4 elements theory to fit. It's the same basic procedure that kept such theories aloft for centuries when we now easily recognize them as just absolute garbage. Not just because we have better theories, but because when approached with a modern scientific mindset such things can be annihilated easily, being obviously wrong and false even if you don't have a better theory immediately on hand to replace it.
anthk 4y ago
No she is not.

jodrellblank 4y ago

As her Venn diagram showed, 'scientific' is a subset of 'falsifiable'. Scientific requires falsifiable, but falsifiable doesn't by itself imply scientific. 'In five minutes the Pacific Ocean will turn to liquid gold' is falsifiable but not scientific. Why would you predict that, what data does it align with, what model of matter and liquids does it work with, by what mechanism might it happen, why five minutes and not sooner or later, etc?

davrosthedalek 4y ago

They are not that random. They typically are motivated by some observation of something, for example discrepancies from Standard Model predictions, or obvious holes in the SM (like the Higgs). Yes, there a many, and people jump on many things which turn out to be noise. But "new particle" as the solution has a rather impressive track record: Atoms, Nuclei, Nucleons, Quarks, Neutrinos, Higgs. The list is not complete.

hackandthink 4y ago
OK. She detailed her point with the Higgs boson. There was an internal inconsistency and the Standard Model needed the Higgs boson. There may be different point of views: your particle is random but mine is a great idea and cleans up the theory. But I actually thought when listening to her talk: isn't it fine thinking about and looking for particles in the next energy range. (we spend money for so many stupid things, 50 * 10^9 Euros (next accelerator) is not so much money related to 500 million people)
- davrosthedalek 4y ago
  I absolutely agree. The amount of money for a LHC upgrade isn't that crazy at all. I do not buy into the argument that we could fund other things instead. We could fund these other things anyway, if we want to, and not funding one project does not mean that something else is funded. Mainly in means the money will go into a different (non-science) pot.

somat 4y ago

A question on logic. Why is that second if needed? I often see the "if and only if"(iff) structure in logic. however I am never able to figure out how it is different than a single if. what exactly is the difference between the following three statements. a theory should be considered scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable. a theory should be considered scientific if it is falsifiable a theory should be considered scientific only if it is falsifiable

marcosdumay 4y ago
"A iff B" means that both "A if b" and "B if A" are true. On this case, it means that to be a theory, it has to be falsifiable, and anything that is falsifiable, is a theory.
bigbillheck 4y ago
It's not a 'second if' it's its own 'only if'.

jerf 4y ago

"Random hypotheses (here particles) are not good science." One of the points I expected when she was showing the graph of predictions and how they shift as we get more data is that while individual theorists may be making testable predictions, the sum total of the field and all the various predictions on offer ends up combining to produce a prediction of essentially everything. The net result is that you don't get much more than that out of the whole process. That's not 100% true; there is still an aspect of exploring what the math landscape permits. But it's much closer to 100% true than we should be comfortable with. Especially with the repeated history, the very repeated history, of some specific hypothesis being falsified (such as SUSY) and the reaction being to just move the goalposts. Again, individually, each such action may be justified, but taken as a collection of all of them, it becomes difficult to distinguish from the way that you can easily justify breaking the world into earth/air/water/fire elements; every time an observation seems to contradict a previous theory you just adjust the 4 elements theory to fit. It's the same basic procedure that kept such theories aloft for centuries when we now easily recognize them as just absolute garbage. Not just because we have better theories, but because when approached with a modern scientific mindset such things can be annihilated easily, being obviously wrong and false even if you don't have a better theory immediately on hand to replace it.

anthk 4y ago

No she is not.