If only climate “science” ...
The very definition of science and the use of the scientific method has been turned on its ear by the “enlightened” in our public schools and universities. One only need to look at “climate science” as a recent example of the bastardization of the use of the word.
That also goes for multi-verse, macro evolution and anthropogenic climate change. But at least we have consensus and peer review. Of course, it was consensus and peer review that turned Gallileo over to the inquisition. But hey, nobody’s perfect.
Dr. Sheldon Cooper will be apoplectic when he hears this!
The fact that string theory has not yet developed falsifiable hypotheses doesn’t mean that it will never do so.
In other words, no matter how unlikely it might seem, this wacky set of ideas may eventually become a “science” according to a strict Popperian definition.
Ergo, let’s give the string theoreticians a while to fool around with their crazy notions, then check back with them in about 100 years to see if they’ve been able to develop the requisite hypotheses.
It’s at best fringe theoretical physics. But more of a metaphor of what COULD be.
This has been known for quite some time. Also, nothing learned via the empirical method counts as absolute knowledge since unless you can study all phenomenon over all time and space you can't say for absolute certain that anything learned empirically counts as a law.
This has also been known for centuries.
The only thing that science has accomplished with regard to pure knowledge is to be able to say with high probability that if certain well run experiments are conducted then scientists can predict with high certainty what specific measured values will be.
Somehow this seemingly sketchy process has resulted in huge technological leaps throughout history through a combination of the scientific method, engineering, tinkering, and an occasional happy accident.
String Theory is in its infancy. It might very well be nonsense. Even though no one has yet come up with a practical experiment to test it, there are hints of what such an experiment might be like. My understanding is that the recent measurements at CERN have already ruled out some versions of String Theory so it seems some parts, at least on the edges, are testable.
It also goes a bit too far. String Theory is based on earlier ideas, which most certainly were science, it contains requirements that we know a unified theory must have [so it is limited by genuine scientific constraints] 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.
All-in-all an article typical of the lay press: long on drama, and very, very short of facts on the ground.
Throw Dark matter in the garbage with it!
If one is dealing in theoretical physics, how does one prove/disprove something that is entirely based on theory with no way to actually measure/test other than mathematical proofs?
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. . .
;-)
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
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?