3 ms·

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

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.

antonvs 3y ago
> For many years (maybe still) String Theory is not testable. You keep repeating this, but it's incorrect in the context we're discussing. > 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 No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm pointing out that string theory was designed from the beginning to make the same predictions as existing theories, and it generally did so, with some caveats. In that sense, it was testable from very early on - you could use it to make predictions, and test those predictions. Peter Woit acknowledges this in the article you linked, writing: > "simple versions of the string theory unification idea, the ones often sold as “beautiful”, disagree with experiment for some basic reasons." The fact that the theory is capable of disagreeing with experiment means that it is testable. The theory might be wrong, as in Woit's example, but it's testable. The whole point of a testable theory in this context is that you can use test to determine when or where the theory is wrong. When Woit says the theory is untestable, he's using the word in a different sense, which he describes in the article. But that is not the same sense in which IIT is untestable. IIT is untestable because there are not tests that can be used to determine when or where the theory is wrong, as there are with string theory. That's why it's pseudoscience. > To toss it out at such an early stage is just as invalid, based on opinion not anything scientific. IIT is 20 years old at this point, hardly "such an early stage".
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Had to check, yes, time is moving on, guess IIT is 20 years old. Curious what tests you think have been done with String Theory. Both String Theory and IIT, now decades old, and still trying to be tested. Both accused of being 'pseudoscience' and 'untestable'. Haven't even gotten into the 'over-fitting' problem attributed to String Theory. IF it doesn't fit, keep adjusting it. But does it really predict anything, if it has to keep being adjusted after the fact. Think you're really splitting hairs on what a 'test' is and what that other article was saying. Guess even after 20+ years even string theory might finally be tested. 2020. Finally Getting there. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-string-theory-finally-be-put-to-the-experimental-test/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-string-theor... "Many physicists consider string theory our best hope for combining quantum physics and gravity into a unified theory of everything. Yet a contrary opinion is that the concept is practically pseudoscience, because it seems to be nearly impossible to test through experiments."

antonvs 3y ago

> For many years (maybe still) String Theory is not testable. You keep repeating this, but it's incorrect in the context we're discussing. > 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 No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm pointing out that string theory was designed from the beginning to make the same predictions as existing theories, and it generally did so, with some caveats. In that sense, it was testable from very early on - you could use it to make predictions, and test those predictions. Peter Woit acknowledges this in the article you linked, writing: > "simple versions of the string theory unification idea, the ones often sold as “beautiful”, disagree with experiment for some basic reasons." The fact that the theory is capable of disagreeing with experiment means that it is testable. The theory might be wrong, as in Woit's example, but it's testable. The whole point of a testable theory in this context is that you can use test to determine when or where the theory is wrong. When Woit says the theory is untestable, he's using the word in a different sense, which he describes in the article. But that is not the same sense in which IIT is untestable. IIT is untestable because there are not tests that can be used to determine when or where the theory is wrong, as there are with string theory. That's why it's pseudoscience. > To toss it out at such an early stage is just as invalid, based on opinion not anything scientific. IIT is 20 years old at this point, hardly "such an early stage".

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Had to check, yes, time is moving on, guess IIT is 20 years old. Curious what tests you think have been done with String Theory. Both String Theory and IIT, now decades old, and still trying to be tested. Both accused of being 'pseudoscience' and 'untestable'. Haven't even gotten into the 'over-fitting' problem attributed to String Theory. IF it doesn't fit, keep adjusting it. But does it really predict anything, if it has to keep being adjusted after the fact. Think you're really splitting hairs on what a 'test' is and what that other article was saying. Guess even after 20+ years even string theory might finally be tested. 2020. Finally Getting there. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-string-theory-finally-be-put-to-the-experimental-test/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-string-theor... "Many physicists consider string theory our best hope for combining quantum physics and gravity into a unified theory of everything. Yet a contrary opinion is that the concept is practically pseudoscience, because it seems to be nearly impossible to test through experiments."