5 ms·

Johannes Koelman takes apart that claim in a concisely articulated argument -- http://www.science20.com/the_hammock_physicist/falsifiability_and_the_integrity_o

by ssivark 12y ago

Johannes Koelman takes apart that claim in a concisely articulated argument -- http://www.science20.com/the_hammock_physicist/falsifiability_and_the_integrity_of_physics-151714 http://www.science20.com/the_hammock_physicist/falsifiabilit... TL;DR: "The scientific method is not about testability or falsifiability per se. It is about trying hard to falsify. Nothing more, nothing less. Truth is to be found in those ideas that survive despite the multitude of attempts to falsify them[...]quantum gravity theories needs to reproduce all known low-energy physics, as well as all known classical gravitational phenomena. In other words: if you ensure your favorite theory of quantum gravity in the appropriate limits reduces to the standard model and Einstein's theory of gravity, your theory has survived all falsification attempts ever undertaken in the history of physics. This is a key point that fails to receive attention in 'string theory and falsifiability' debates."

fmos 12y ago
But then the "appropriate limits" are part of your theory.
- analog31 12y ago
  >>> But then the "appropriate limits" are part of your theory. That's certainly true. I'm not active in that field, but a couple of examples of appropriate limits are where classical mechanics is an appropriate limit of both quantum mechanics and special relativity. It only says that if your theory profoundly disagrees with existing observation, try again. At an even simpler level, the approximately parabolic arc of a stone thrown in the air is an appropriate limit of Newton's mechanics. But the hope is to create a theory where some other limit can also be found -- such a limit might be an unexpected new particle, astronomical observation, etc.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
hga 12y ago
Let me put on my reductionist hat: what use would be such a theory, if it perfectly matches observed reality but offers absolutely nothing new? String theory has often been called mental mstrbtn (evidently using the real world hellbans such comments); should anyone get paid for pleasuring their minds in this way???
- manicdee 12y ago
  "Intellectual onanism" is a more sophisticated way ofsaying the same thing without triggering the bad word police.
  - hga 12y ago
    Without, though, the wonderful alliteration. Thanks, the modern word isn't part of my working vocabulary.
    - CGamesPlay 12y ago
      Apparently not a modern word; biblical: http://biblehub.com/genesis/38-9.htm http://biblehub.com/genesis/38-9.htm
      - hga 12y ago
        That's the etymology, but from what I looked up it wasn't used as such until the 16th Century.
- ssivark 12y ago
  In all the cases that have been historically tested, it agrees with observations, as the article claims. It doesn't mean that's all there is. At least in the particular example of string theory, it is way more than that. 1. Firstly, it is more a framework, rather than a specific model. Eg: You cannot test statistical mechanics (framework) as such, you test the kinetic theory of gases (model). String theory is still quite nascent: there's been tremendous progress, but the goals are also very ambitious. It might take a few more decades for scientific research to culminate in a concrete model that provides ripe pickings for practical applications. 2. There are definite some limits where string theory has added new insights on things we simply had no clue about (One such poster child is the concept of "dualities" between field theories, and new ways to understand very practical aspects of quantum field theory.) I do not wish to go into too many details, for fear of digressing. Consider this apocryphal story about Faraday: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/faraday.asp http://www.snopes.com/quotes/faraday.asp Sometimes it takes a lot of imagination and a significant period of time before progress in basic science can be applied to human existence. But in the long run, it will invariably alter the situation drastically, in a way we can barely imagine. 1. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/22/material-question http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/22/material-questi... 2. Amara's law: "We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run." Given the possible payoff in the long run, imho, the investment being made today is a trivial amount. Eg: "It's been only half jokingly said that today a third of the GDP is attributable to quantum mechanics." http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/Augustine2.html http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/Augustine2.html

by ssivark 12y ago

fmos 12y ago

But then the "appropriate limits" are part of your theory.

analog31 12y ago
>>> But then the "appropriate limits" are part of your theory. That's certainly true. I'm not active in that field, but a couple of examples of appropriate limits are where classical mechanics is an appropriate limit of both quantum mechanics and special relativity. It only says that if your theory profoundly disagrees with existing observation, try again. At an even simpler level, the approximately parabolic arc of a stone thrown in the air is an appropriate limit of Newton's mechanics. But the hope is to create a theory where some other limit can also be found -- such a limit might be an unexpected new particle, astronomical observation, etc.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

hga 12y ago

Let me put on my reductionist hat: what use would be such a theory, if it perfectly matches observed reality but offers absolutely nothing new? String theory has often been called mental mstrbtn (evidently using the real world hellbans such comments); should anyone get paid for pleasuring their minds in this way???

manicdee 12y ago
"Intellectual onanism" is a more sophisticated way ofsaying the same thing without triggering the bad word police.
- hga 12y ago
  Without, though, the wonderful alliteration. Thanks, the modern word isn't part of my working vocabulary.
  - CGamesPlay 12y ago
    Apparently not a modern word; biblical: http://biblehub.com/genesis/38-9.htm http://biblehub.com/genesis/38-9.htm
    - hga 12y ago
      That's the etymology, but from what I looked up it wasn't used as such until the 16th Century.
ssivark 12y ago
In all the cases that have been historically tested, it agrees with observations, as the article claims. It doesn't mean that's all there is. At least in the particular example of string theory, it is way more than that. 1. Firstly, it is more a framework, rather than a specific model. Eg: You cannot test statistical mechanics (framework) as such, you test the kinetic theory of gases (model). String theory is still quite nascent: there's been tremendous progress, but the goals are also very ambitious. It might take a few more decades for scientific research to culminate in a concrete model that provides ripe pickings for practical applications. 2. There are definite some limits where string theory has added new insights on things we simply had no clue about (One such poster child is the concept of "dualities" between field theories, and new ways to understand very practical aspects of quantum field theory.) I do not wish to go into too many details, for fear of digressing. Consider this apocryphal story about Faraday: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/faraday.asp http://www.snopes.com/quotes/faraday.asp Sometimes it takes a lot of imagination and a significant period of time before progress in basic science can be applied to human existence. But in the long run, it will invariably alter the situation drastically, in a way we can barely imagine. 1. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/22/material-question http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/22/material-questi... 2. Amara's law: "We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run." Given the possible payoff in the long run, imho, the investment being made today is a trivial amount. Eg: "It's been only half jokingly said that today a third of the GDP is attributable to quantum mechanics." http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/Augustine2.html http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/Augustine2.html