5 ms·

Except that testability is one of the core principles of science. If there isn't a way to prove/disprove what you are claiming then we can assert all sorts of

by iammjm 3y ago

Except that testability is one of the core principles of science. If there isn't a way to prove/disprove what you are claiming then we can assert all sorts of things and call it science, at which point science loses all it's credibility

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Can't test String Theory, is it not science, are the people studying it not scientist? The testability argument is not all of science, a lot of science has to be done before reaching a point to figure out how to test something.
- antonvs 3y ago
  There are many tests that can be done of string theory. The issue is that there are no good known tests that can confirm or refute its validity compared to that of the theories it is attempting to replace. You can't say the same about IIT. It doesn't really qualify as a theory in the scientific sense.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    I think the point is, there were many years (decades) where String Theory was NOT testable. During all that time, research was occurring, it was called science, even though it was not yet testable. Was String Theory during that time a pseudoscience? Science doesn't appear 'out-of-the-box' instantly testable. There is a lot of time of speculation, and thought, and pondering with ideas that ebb and flow, before something gets defined enough to test. If science is not valid if it is not testable, then what are all these researchers in theoretical physics doing? There is plenty of work going on today that is not yet 'testable'. How do you get to the point of having something to test, if the 'science' up until that point is not valid? My argument being, using testability as the measure to toss ITT out the window, is a bit premature, given testability is actually not the only benchmark for doing science.
    - antonvs 3y ago
      > I think the point is, there were many years (decades) where String Theory was NOT testable. That's inaccurate or incorrect. You're using "testable" in two different ways without realizing it. From the very beginning, string theory has been testable in the normal sense that scientific theories are testable: it makes predictions, and you can test those predictions. However, it was designed to make the same predictions as quantum physics and relativity. When people say string theory is "not testable", what they mean is that there are no known, viable tests that allow us to determine whether string theory might provide a better description of the universe than the existing theories. There was nothing such as, for example, the lensing of starlight around the Sun that helped determine that general relativity's predictions were more accurate than Newtonian ones. This is very different from the situation with IIT. IIT is not testable at all. In that sense, it is demonstrably pseudoscience, or if we're being charitable, a conjecture that hasn't yet been fleshed out to the level of a testable hypothesis.
      - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        I think I'm using it correctly. You are saying IIT is not testable at all. For many years (maybe still) String Theory is not testable. Yet you are trying to say String Theory has some extra quality that is convincing enough to allow us to assume that in the future it might be testable, thus giving it more credibility than IIT. But what is this difference between two untestable theories? >"When people say string theory is "not testable", what they mean is that there are no known, viable tests" If string theory doesn't have any viable tests, and IIT does not have any viable tests. Then you are back to more 'assuming' one can eventually be 'testable' while the other will never be. In the absence of something actually testable, you are making a judgment call that one is 'better' than the other. >"From the beginning". 2007 https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=533 https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=533 >"My conclusion, as you’d expect, is that string theory is not testable in any conventional scientific use of the term." "Getting around these problems requires working with much more complicated versions, which have become so complicated that the framework becomes untestable as it can be made to agree with virtually anything one is likely to experimentally measure." I'm not up on current string theory. I'm just saying, 'theories' often do go through many years of discussion, and re-work, before they crystalize into something 'testable', even remotely testable. So why judge IIT so harshly now when it is still being formalized. To toss it out at such an early stage is just as invalid, based on opinion not anything scientific.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- twic 3y ago
  String theory is indeed also not really science.
mistermann 3y ago
Luckily, philosophy (epistemology) still exists, and is much more flexible and thus resilient, though it is decidedly less popular (coincidence?).
riku_iki 3y ago
> If there isn't a way to prove/disprove what you are claiming I don't think you can ever prove/disprove anything perfectly. Scientists create models/theories which fit(not always perfectly) into current observations.

by iammjm 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

Can't test String Theory, is it not science, are the people studying it not scientist? The testability argument is not all of science, a lot of science has to be done before reaching a point to figure out how to test something.

antonvs 3y ago
There are many tests that can be done of string theory. The issue is that there are no good known tests that can confirm or refute its validity compared to that of the theories it is attempting to replace. You can't say the same about IIT. It doesn't really qualify as a theory in the scientific sense.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  I think the point is, there were many years (decades) where String Theory was NOT testable. During all that time, research was occurring, it was called science, even though it was not yet testable. Was String Theory during that time a pseudoscience? Science doesn't appear 'out-of-the-box' instantly testable. There is a lot of time of speculation, and thought, and pondering with ideas that ebb and flow, before something gets defined enough to test. If science is not valid if it is not testable, then what are all these researchers in theoretical physics doing? There is plenty of work going on today that is not yet 'testable'. How do you get to the point of having something to test, if the 'science' up until that point is not valid? My argument being, using testability as the measure to toss ITT out the window, is a bit premature, given testability is actually not the only benchmark for doing science.
  - antonvs 3y ago
    > I think the point is, there were many years (decades) where String Theory was NOT testable. That's inaccurate or incorrect. You're using "testable" in two different ways without realizing it. From the very beginning, string theory has been testable in the normal sense that scientific theories are testable: it makes predictions, and you can test those predictions. However, it was designed to make the same predictions as quantum physics and relativity. When people say string theory is "not testable", what they mean is that there are no known, viable tests that allow us to determine whether string theory might provide a better description of the universe than the existing theories. There was nothing such as, for example, the lensing of starlight around the Sun that helped determine that general relativity's predictions were more accurate than Newtonian ones. This is very different from the situation with IIT. IIT is not testable at all. In that sense, it is demonstrably pseudoscience, or if we're being charitable, a conjecture that hasn't yet been fleshed out to the level of a testable hypothesis.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      I think I'm using it correctly. You are saying IIT is not testable at all. For many years (maybe still) String Theory is not testable. Yet you are trying to say String Theory has some extra quality that is convincing enough to allow us to assume that in the future it might be testable, thus giving it more credibility than IIT. But what is this difference between two untestable theories? >"When people say string theory is "not testable", what they mean is that there are no known, viable tests" If string theory doesn't have any viable tests, and IIT does not have any viable tests. Then you are back to more 'assuming' one can eventually be 'testable' while the other will never be. In the absence of something actually testable, you are making a judgment call that one is 'better' than the other. >"From the beginning". 2007 https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=533 https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=533 >"My conclusion, as you’d expect, is that string theory is not testable in any conventional scientific use of the term." "Getting around these problems requires working with much more complicated versions, which have become so complicated that the framework becomes untestable as it can be made to agree with virtually anything one is likely to experimentally measure." I'm not up on current string theory. I'm just saying, 'theories' often do go through many years of discussion, and re-work, before they crystalize into something 'testable', even remotely testable. So why judge IIT so harshly now when it is still being formalized. To toss it out at such an early stage is just as invalid, based on opinion not anything scientific.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
twic 3y ago
String theory is indeed also not really science.

mistermann 3y ago

Luckily, philosophy (epistemology) still exists, and is much more flexible and thus resilient, though it is decidedly less popular (coincidence?).

riku_iki 3y ago

> If there isn't a way to prove/disprove what you are claiming I don't think you can ever prove/disprove anything perfectly. Scientists create models/theories which fit(not always perfectly) into current observations.