6 ms·

Everyone knows this. But without looking at the direct rules of the system, this is the best you can do. It’s not like you can just open the source code of th

Everyone knows this. But without looking at the direct rules of the system, this is the best you can do. It’s not like you can just open the source code of the universe. You observe and make a theory that explains the observations, then the theory holds at least until a new observation contradicts the theory. Is the current theory wrong? Maybe. But everything can be wrong and the world is always welcome to hear a new theory that completely explains all current observations. But to just say a theory is wrong without providing a completely explained new one adds nothing.

nilkn 2y ago
Everybody knows it, but the principle is selectively applied. For instance, our observations imply both general relativity and quantum field theory are necessary to model various aspects of the world. That’s an example of a Y. The only known X that’s ever been discovered that can encompass all aspects of that Y at all energy levels is string theory. Yet we are rightly careful to assume string theory is correct and enshrine it into the core body of scientific consensus. That does not mean we cannot or should not investigate it or even theory build on top of it, but it does mean we should refrain from assuming it must be true just because nobody can find anything better.
- bumby 2y ago
  >but it does mean we should refrain from assuming it must be true just because nobody can find anything better. The vast majority of science is not disproving a theory but adding nuance to it. Newtonian physics wasn't disproven by quantum physics, but quantum physics showed that Newtonian physics has limitations as a model. It's not unreasonable to assume our best model is true until there is a reasonable amount of data to the contrary. As others have said, your point adds little to the conversation until you bring good data to the argument.
  - nilkn 2y ago
    I don’t accept that I owe anyone any kind of additional data on any of this. Just like I don’t have to have a proven solution to the problem of finding a theory of everything to suggest that string theory may not be the truth of the universe while still acknowledging that it can be a worthwhile thread of inquiry and study. Suggesting that we avoid possible dogma has intrinsic value. Let us step back and consider the fact that the combination of general relativity and the Standard Model already cannot explain our most basic cosmological observations. We cannot explain the stability of even our own galaxy based on current models. This situation clearly calls for some basic caution before we enshrine possible unproven explanations into humanity’s view of the universe. There’s a lot of evidence, both long established and newly growing, which shows that our models can’t consistently explain many of the basic things we see around us when we look up at the sky.
    - bumby 2y ago
      If you are trying to make a scientific argument, you should bring data since that's the cornerstone of science. You seem to be implying that people treat these models as gospel. I suspect most of those who are deep enough in the field understand they are models and respect the limitations. To that end, it's not dogma. Saying "this is the best model we currently have" is not the same as dogma. The article is specifically about using data to either support or reject a model so I don't know where you get the idea that anything is being "enshrined" and above reproach. Ironically, saying you don't need to bring data to support your point pushes your position closer to dogma. Your original point says very little. Yes, science acknowledges that you can never 100% say "X causes Y". Science is about getting closer and closer to that 100% with better models and better data while acknowledging it's impossible to get there completely. That's why people are saying your point is a nothing-burger. It's stating the obvious based on a strawman position.
      - nilkn 2y ago
        Strong reactions like yours to what should be a very mild and uncontroversal statement that you evidently don’t even disagree with are exactly why these things are increasingly viewed by many as having elements of dogma. What I wrote needed to be said, despite evidently containing very little interesting content, precisely because of how severely it provokes certain people who claim not to even disagree with it. The degree of the provocation proves the value of the statement.
        bumby 2y ago
        What makes you think I have a strong reaction? >What I wrote needed to be said There are apparently plenty of people who disagree (myself included) based on the comments. I think the reaction you're getting is because it's not a particularly fruitful comment because it adds nothing to the conversation, while being veiled as a profound statement. >The degree of the provocation proves the value of the statement. Except the response isn't a response to the claim, it's in response to the absence of one. If a researcher publishes some incomprehensible word-salad and lots of people write to the editor saying it's a worthless article, it doesn't somehow translate value to the original work. I think what you're experiencing is people being protective of HN in terms of having meaningful debate and what you said isn't particularly meaningful despite the wordsmithing.
- pdonis 2y ago
  > The only known X that’s ever been discovered that can encompass all aspects of that Y at all energy levels is string theory. This is not correct; string theory is not the only candidate we have for a theory of quantum gravity.
  - nilkn 2y ago
    I didn’t say it’s the only theory of quantum gravity. You can get a theory of quantum gravity by taking standard QFT — it just won’t work at extremely high energies. Other options like loop quantum gravity do not reproduce the rest of our models about everything else. I said it’s the only theory of gravity and everything else at all energy levels, and that’s true. In fact, you’ll notice I did not even use the term “quantum gravity” to avoid the exact confusion you fell into anyway.
- SkyBelow 2y ago
  >but it does mean we should refrain from assuming it must be true A good scientist will tell you that we don't assume it is truth. Instead, it is the closest thing to truth we can get at this time, but we are always seek better. But like a limit, we can only ever approach closer and never arrive at truth. As the other poster mentioned, we don't have a way to open up the source code of the universe. Some scientists get a bit too attached to theories and can move them from "closest we currently have to truth" to "truth", but I think the bigger issue is that the non-scientists involve in transmitting science too often present it as truth, instead of the best approximation we currently have. Often because fake confidence beats out measured modesty, and the one claiming to have truth is more convincing than the one saying we can't know truth and only better approximate it. A scientist will say science is true for the sake of simplifying the philosophy of science to those unfamiliar with it, but any scientist who thinks they have captured objective truth has lost the philosophical foundations of science.
StanislavPetrov 2y ago
>But to just say a theory is wrong without providing a completely explained new one adds nothing. It certainly does. You don't have to know how something works to be able to know how it doesn't work. And there is value in knowing how something doesn't work, even if you don't know how it works.

nilkn 2y ago

Everybody knows it, but the principle is selectively applied. For instance, our observations imply both general relativity and quantum field theory are necessary to model various aspects of the world. That’s an example of a Y. The only known X that’s ever been discovered that can encompass all aspects of that Y at all energy levels is string theory. Yet we are rightly careful to assume string theory is correct and enshrine it into the core body of scientific consensus. That does not mean we cannot or should not investigate it or even theory build on top of it, but it does mean we should refrain from assuming it must be true just because nobody can find anything better.

bumby 2y ago
>but it does mean we should refrain from assuming it must be true just because nobody can find anything better. The vast majority of science is not disproving a theory but adding nuance to it. Newtonian physics wasn't disproven by quantum physics, but quantum physics showed that Newtonian physics has limitations as a model. It's not unreasonable to assume our best model is true until there is a reasonable amount of data to the contrary. As others have said, your point adds little to the conversation until you bring good data to the argument.
- nilkn 2y ago
  I don’t accept that I owe anyone any kind of additional data on any of this. Just like I don’t have to have a proven solution to the problem of finding a theory of everything to suggest that string theory may not be the truth of the universe while still acknowledging that it can be a worthwhile thread of inquiry and study. Suggesting that we avoid possible dogma has intrinsic value. Let us step back and consider the fact that the combination of general relativity and the Standard Model already cannot explain our most basic cosmological observations. We cannot explain the stability of even our own galaxy based on current models. This situation clearly calls for some basic caution before we enshrine possible unproven explanations into humanity’s view of the universe. There’s a lot of evidence, both long established and newly growing, which shows that our models can’t consistently explain many of the basic things we see around us when we look up at the sky.
  - bumby 2y ago
    If you are trying to make a scientific argument, you should bring data since that's the cornerstone of science. You seem to be implying that people treat these models as gospel. I suspect most of those who are deep enough in the field understand they are models and respect the limitations. To that end, it's not dogma. Saying "this is the best model we currently have" is not the same as dogma. The article is specifically about using data to either support or reject a model so I don't know where you get the idea that anything is being "enshrined" and above reproach. Ironically, saying you don't need to bring data to support your point pushes your position closer to dogma. Your original point says very little. Yes, science acknowledges that you can never 100% say "X causes Y". Science is about getting closer and closer to that 100% with better models and better data while acknowledging it's impossible to get there completely. That's why people are saying your point is a nothing-burger. It's stating the obvious based on a strawman position.
    - nilkn 2y ago
      Strong reactions like yours to what should be a very mild and uncontroversal statement that you evidently don’t even disagree with are exactly why these things are increasingly viewed by many as having elements of dogma. What I wrote needed to be said, despite evidently containing very little interesting content, precisely because of how severely it provokes certain people who claim not to even disagree with it. The degree of the provocation proves the value of the statement.
      - bumby 2y ago
        What makes you think I have a strong reaction? >What I wrote needed to be said There are apparently plenty of people who disagree (myself included) based on the comments. I think the reaction you're getting is because it's not a particularly fruitful comment because it adds nothing to the conversation, while being veiled as a profound statement. >The degree of the provocation proves the value of the statement. Except the response isn't a response to the claim, it's in response to the absence of one. If a researcher publishes some incomprehensible word-salad and lots of people write to the editor saying it's a worthless article, it doesn't somehow translate value to the original work. I think what you're experiencing is people being protective of HN in terms of having meaningful debate and what you said isn't particularly meaningful despite the wordsmithing.
pdonis 2y ago
> The only known X that’s ever been discovered that can encompass all aspects of that Y at all energy levels is string theory. This is not correct; string theory is not the only candidate we have for a theory of quantum gravity.
- nilkn 2y ago
  I didn’t say it’s the only theory of quantum gravity. You can get a theory of quantum gravity by taking standard QFT — it just won’t work at extremely high energies. Other options like loop quantum gravity do not reproduce the rest of our models about everything else. I said it’s the only theory of gravity and everything else at all energy levels, and that’s true. In fact, you’ll notice I did not even use the term “quantum gravity” to avoid the exact confusion you fell into anyway.
SkyBelow 2y ago
>but it does mean we should refrain from assuming it must be true A good scientist will tell you that we don't assume it is truth. Instead, it is the closest thing to truth we can get at this time, but we are always seek better. But like a limit, we can only ever approach closer and never arrive at truth. As the other poster mentioned, we don't have a way to open up the source code of the universe. Some scientists get a bit too attached to theories and can move them from "closest we currently have to truth" to "truth", but I think the bigger issue is that the non-scientists involve in transmitting science too often present it as truth, instead of the best approximation we currently have. Often because fake confidence beats out measured modesty, and the one claiming to have truth is more convincing than the one saying we can't know truth and only better approximate it. A scientist will say science is true for the sake of simplifying the philosophy of science to those unfamiliar with it, but any scientist who thinks they have captured objective truth has lost the philosophical foundations of science.

StanislavPetrov 2y ago

>But to just say a theory is wrong without providing a completely explained new one adds nothing. It certainly does. You don't have to know how something works to be able to know how it doesn't work. And there is value in knowing how something doesn't work, even if you don't know how it works.