3 ms·
What is the utility of advancing a theory that is unfalsifiable in the Popperian sense? This category of theory, even if on strong philosophical footing, seems
by jordanpg 12y ago
What is the utility of advancing a theory that is unfalsifiable in the Popperian sense? This category of theory, even if on strong philosophical footing, seems to be quite apart from theories that can be used to build devices that won't work if the theory turns out to be wrong.
In any case, I doubt very seriously that there are more than a few thousand people alive who can have an informed opinion on this.
- eternalban 12y ago> What is the utility of advancing a theory that is unfalsifiable in the Popperian sense? Conceptual clarity in context of our uncanny existence?
- hga 12y agoTo quote from the article: "As we see it, theoretical physics risks becoming a no-man's-land between mathematics, physics and philosophy that does not truly meet the requirements of any." What I think you're suggesting is a philosophical benefit. Which echoing another comment of mine, probably shouldn't get funded by the NSF (the US National Science Foundation, one of the parts of the US Federal government who's remit includes funding theoretical physics).
- eternalban 12y agoI was obliquely suggesting that there is clearly "utility" in speculation (but let me note here that this layman would not accept metaphysics dressed up as physics). I agree that the institutional angle here is what is the critical issue. So to answer the GP once again, "Go ask the Pope!"
- toufka 12y agoI wouldn't go that far - there's still utility to be had in generating the theories. What is a practical problem though, is that other less sexy fields of physics are losing funding to the string theorists. Give them their own discipline, their own pot of cash and let them figure out their theories - while simultaneously maintaining a separate pot of cash for those who work on the falsifiable parts of physics. In other words, let it be a no-man's land, so long as it's boundaries are delineated and separate from the math, physics and philosophy that it came from. There's nothing wrong with designing a new discipline.
- hga 12y agoYeah, one of the other big issues that I've noted people in the field complaining about is how string theorists are indeed sucking up a disproportionate share of theoretical physics, but worse than that. Since their's is, from what I read, the US consensus on how to do that area of theoretical physics, in the usual group think fashion of funding organizations, other approaches find difficulty getting any respect, let alone funding. Anyway, the problem here of course is that they would never accept being relegated to a field that's not "physics", since capital P Physics has so much respectability, pretty much the most of anything. But since they're now openly trying to redefine scientific truth (as the FDA did to come up with its second hand smoke "science"), it's hard to see any option less severe than the one you propose.
- kazagistar 12y agoA theory that is falsifiable is more like a reformulation of the existing theories, and should be judged as such. Heaviside reformulated Maxwell's equations, and we use the new ones because they make things simpler to understand and use. Its not about finding "truth"; its more about finding useful information. However, if a physics theory fails this criteria as well, then it is certainly pointless.
- kijin 12y agoWell, if you keep thinking about a theory for long enough, you might finally come up with a way to falsify it. No theory is falsified overnight. It takes a lot of work to do proper falsifications.