A Fight for the Soul of Science (physicists, philosophers debate boundaries of science)

Quanta Magazine ^ | 12/16/15 | Natalie Wolchover

[jcon40]

Agree

It is not just what we are looking at but the mind and soul we are looking with that are at issue

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks LibWhacker.

---

· String Theory Ping List ·

---

---

· Join · Bookmark · Topics · Google ·
· View or Post in 'blog · post a topic · subscribe ·

---

[BroJoeK]

Fai Mao: "I have had this type of discussion with science guys that fail to realize that science is based upon philosophy."

Modern science -- natural science -- is based on at least two great assumptions:

1. Only natural explanations for natural processes, and
2. Natural processes operated the same in the distant past as they do today.

This article addresses the question: can an untestable hypothesis be classified as "scientific".
The answer is "no", but scientists can find some wiggle-room in definitions of "test" and "confirmation".

The correct term for untestable hypotheses is "speculation", regardless of how "scientific" it's thinkers may consider themselves.

[BroJoeK]

from the article: "Carlo Rovelli, a proponent of loop quantum gravity (string theory's rival) who is based at Aix-Marseille University in France, objected that Bayesian confirmation theory does not allow for an important distinction that exists in science between theories that scientists are certain about and those that are still being tested."

"Strong confirmation" implies numerous observations predicted by a hypothesis.
Strong confirmation converts a hypothesis into a theory.

"Weak confirmation" implies only occasional or tangential observations predicted by a hypothesis.
Weak confirmations should not be classified as adequate grounds for graduation from hypothesis to theory.

IOW, "String theory" is really just "string hypothesis".

[onedoug]

But that at lower energies the same mathematics exactly describe general relativity. Thus from that perspective, it’s a pretty good theory.

[BroJoeK]

onedoug: "But that at lower energies the same mathematics exactly describe general relativity.
Thus from that perspective, it's a pretty good theory."

Granted, but I'd call that a weak confirmation, not near enough to graduate from hypothesis to theory.
Indeed, to the degree it can't be tested or falsified, it doesn't even qualify as "hypothesis".
A better term would be "educated speculation", or less politely: S.W.D. (scientific wet dream).

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks BroJoeK.

[AFPhys]

Wow. Great article. Certainly a great deal there to ponder for a long while to come.

Thanks for Posting. Thanks for Pinging.

[SunkenCiv]

The Scientist vs The Humanist ed by George Levine and Owen P. Thomas W W Norton & Co; (June 1963)