Why String Theory Is Not Science

Forbes ^ | December 23, 2015 | Ethan Siegel

[Hawthorn]

>> At least call it “string hypothesis” until they can come up with their first experiment <<

Well, no.

I believe that hypotheses need to be testable and falsifiable.

So if string “theory” is not an acceptable term, then string “speculation” might be a good substitute.

[Crucial]

Fine. In the future people will laugh at the “dark” theories.

[Mrs. B.S. Roberts]

you beat me to it! Although, didn’t Sheldon change his
area of study away from string theory?

[minnesota_bound]

String theory are tangled up.

[minnesota_bound]

#5 He switched to geology. He is a mudman.

[Reeses]

the mathematics are so beautiful

All mathematical models are simplifications that will never calculate the real world exactly right. While some models are useful, all models are wrong to some extent, and especially so the pretty ones.

[onedoug]

Though precise enough to have forced the Japanese surrender during WWII, to light our cities, and to have taken us into the far reaches of the solar system, etc....

I believe God created the ordinal sense.

[SunkenCiv]

---

Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law by Peter Woit 1st Edition ppbk reprint

---

[SunkenCiv]

---

· String Theory Ping List ·

---

---

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

---

[samtheman]

Good article.

Thanks for posting.

Here’s a good explanation of what string theory is all about:

http://www.sciencealert.com/watch-the-best-explanation-of-string-theory-we-ve-ever-seen

[AdmSmith]

I think that the article is unfair in the sense that string theory actually is a very big family of different variants of string theories, and we do not yet know how to reduce it to just a few theories and test them. But it is for sure science.

Here are two views about the article:
Lubos Motl: String theory is as much science as other pillars of science. Siegel’s criticism of string theory is fully analogous to a criticism of heliocentrism
http://motls.blogspot.se/2015/12/string-theory-is-as-much-science-as.html

and

Peter Voit: Why String Theory?

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8214

[BroJoeK]

from the article: "If you want to rise to the level of a scientific theory, you have to make a testable -- and hence, falsifiable or validatable -- predictions.
Even a physical state that arises as a consequence of an established theory, such as the multiverse, isn't a scientific theory until we have a way to confirm or refute it; it's only a hypothesis, even if it's a good hypothesis.
What's interesting about string theory is that when it was first proposed, it was called the string hypothesis, as it was recognized this idea hadn't yet risen to the status of a full-fledged theory."

AdmSmith: "I think that the article is unfair in the sense that string theory actually is a very big family of different variants of string theories, and we do not yet know how to reduce it to just a few theories and test them.
But it is for sure science."

FredZarguna: "It also goes a bit too far.
String Theory is based on earlier ideas, which most certainly were science...
and it actually does make some falsifiable predictions, which, although they appear at energies we will probably never reach in terrestrial labs, might have consequences we can falsify or verify in other ways."

Moonman62: "As to those who so easily dismiss the hard work done by scientists and theoreticians, I think it makes them feel somehow superior."

Hulka: "I am not a scientist, but did stay in a cheap Holiday Inn Express last night. . .with a cheap hooker. . .JUST kidding. . .as far as you know. . ."

Ah, riiiiight.

What is or is not science -- modern science, natural science -- is a matter of definitions and assumptions.
By definition:

1. If an idea is a natural explanation for natural processes, and if proposed by recognized scientists, then it qualifies as "science".
   Clearly string ideas reach this low bar.

2. If said idea can be scientifically tested and falsified or confirmed, then it qualifies as a "hypothesis".
   String ideas are not testable today, though it is sometimes claimed they might be testable in some distant future, or we might find evidence confirming predictions... etc.
   This puts string ideas on the borderline between "science" and "hypotheses".
   IOW, if we call it a "hypothesis", then it must be qualified as "weak hypothesis".

3. If said hypothesis has been tested and confirmed, then it qualifies as a "theory".
   Theories can be confirmed weakly or strongly, and very strongly confirmed theories may even be reclassified as "facts".
   One example of "theory becomes fact" might be Earth's shape and rotation around the Sun.
   Weakly confirmed theories (i.e., AGW) can be the subject of endless, often heated debates extending far beyond the realms of natural-science.
   String ideas are in no sense confirmed or falsified, and so do not qualify as "theory".

So, what should we call it?
Yes, it does qualify as "string science", but that term "science" in today's world implies a far greater sense of certitude than the ideas merit.
So, in the past I've suggested "string speculations", which perhaps does not give those ideas enough credit.

So, I'm left with the term used throughout here: "string ideas".
Not yet good enough for "hypothesis" and in no way, shape or form "theory".

[BlueDragon]

Throw Dark matter in the garbage with it!

To do that, one would need find some, first?

Then if you did (find some, for a certainty that is) it would be the greatest find since Pennzoil.

At first, they didn't know what to do with it. Tried to get rid of it, mixed it in with other "stuff" and bottled it, selling it as patent medicine. Then after a while discovered is could be cracked and people wouldn't have to put whales in try-pots no more...

Eventually, along about the time the mile-a-minute speed barrier was broken ---- that's how the Indy 500 became an invention.

One of these days, Alice --- to the Moon Everywhere

Or so the theory weak hypothesis W.A.>geusstimation of what else will be figured out by then as for how matter, space & time interrelate; how everything really goes...

Never mind how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Speed (velocity) being relative...
When they appear (or are not seen) how fast do they fly?

Spooky

[samtheman]

Thanks for the articles. I will read them today.

[Hulka]

What would you call the ancient Greeks concept of atoms?

They had no way to measure it, test it, whatever. . .was it a theory?

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks!

[BroJoeK]

Hulka: "What would you call the ancient Greeks concept of atoms?
They had no way to measure it, test it, whatever. . .was it a theory?"

Sure, but not a scientific theory, as we understand that term today.
Greeks were famous for philosophy, which certainly included the study of nature, but they did not have a separate branch of learning, with all the rules and assumption of today's natural-science.

By the age of our Founding Fathers, the study of nature went under the term "natural philosophy", which in time became "natural science", today's "science".

So my best guess is: Greeks would consider their idea of atoms as a metaphysical assertion, certainly not a scientific theory.

Comments?

[who_would_fardels_bear]

The question of what counts as a scientific theory falls in the realm of the philosophy of science. It is not a question that can be answered by science or scientists.

It is a matter of definitions and epistemological and ontological considerations.

Most scientists are not very good philosophers. Lots of scientists are even antagonistic toward philosophy. It seems counterintuitive, but scientists are probably among the last people you would want to ask with regard to questions at the boundaries of scientific investigation.

The article is baloney because they bring up the theory of falsifiability which was dismissed back in the early 20th century.

It used to be that good scientists were also steeped in philosophy and were also pretty damned good philosophers. This is not the case today, unfortunately.

It also seems that science journalists are also not particularly adept at philosophy either.

[BroJoeK]

“The question of what counts as a scientific theory falls in the realm of the philosophy of science.
It is not a question that can be answered by science or scientists.”

Of course it can, and by US law, is.
Modern science — aka “Natural science” — is a function of definitions, assumptions and rules.
These tell us what is or is not “science”, what qualifies as “hypothesis”, what it takes to make a hypothesis “theory”, and how, rarely, a theory may become “fact”.

Of course, you may not like the rules & assumptions of science — tough.
They remain, according to US law, what scientists say they are, and are not subject to overrule by some governing body of philosopher-kings.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Ha ha ha! Thanks for the laugh.