4 ms·
Some theories are only untestable for practical reasons, like needing a particle accelerator the size of the solar system. That doesn't make them unscientific o
by mr_mitm 3y ago
Some theories are only untestable for practical reasons, like needing a particle accelerator the size of the solar system. That doesn't make them unscientific or "not theories". That is not the kind of falsifiability that Karl Popper had in mind.
- leptons 3y agoYes, it does. The word "theory" has a specific meaning. What this article is about is really a hypothesis, not a theory. I saw no evidence or data to back up what they think might be happening, thus not a theory. "In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it's a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data." Most people in this thread, as well as the writers of the article seem to be confused about the meaning of the word theory.
- mr_mitm 3y agoMaybe that should give you a hint that professional working scientists don't care much for definitions from wordbooks. Besides, I was commenting on the topic of falsifiability. To be a scientific hypothesis or theory it must be falsifiable - in principle, not practically. At least that's my claim in the context of Popper. Evidence didn't even enter the discussion.
- selfmodruntime 3y agoDo you have any examples? I‘d to read up!
- mr_mitm 3y agoThis guy is exploring ultra large colliders: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.02048 https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.02048 > The CCM will be an important stepping stone toward an ultimate Planck- scale collider, with a centre-of-mass energy of ∼10^16 TeV, that would require a minimum size equal to a tenth of the distance from Earth to Sun.