I have had this type of discussion with science guys that fail to realize that science is based upon philosophy
Physics and mathematics are truly beautiful constructs, even of God. Yet nothing should be trusted which hasn’t been experimentally tested, even as those ends are so seductive.
If it’s not falsifiable is isn’t science, metaphysics perhaps or speculation. Not that there’s anything wrong with that but don’t bet the store.
Thanks for this post. Quanta has interesting articles.
I do agree with Feynman. And I think Popper is right in that these theories are testable, just not necessarily yet technically.
And this:
“String theory explains the entropy of black holes, for example, and, in a surprising discovery that has caused a surge of research in the past 15 years, is mathematically translatable into a theory of particles, such as the theory describing the nuclei of atoms.”
Seems pretty close to being empirical if it’s not there yet.
Princeton's 25 year long P.E.A.R. project attempted to test ideas about what consciousness is and how it functions in defining reality.
Most hard science guys class PEAR’s work as pseudoscience. non the less much of the work they did points to why there are problems getting classic science to align with new discoveries and philosophy
IMHO
In discussions on the third afternoon of the workshop there was a special conference, the upshot of which all present voiced their support for man-made climate change ...
Any facts, data or evidence which runs contrary to the dogmas and politically calculated computer models of the scientific community is heresy.
Will read this later.
If the universe is the answer, what is the question?
The deeper I go in meditation and observe consciousness as physical the more I realize that the anatomy and physiology of the human soul are very similar to atomic physics. Orbitals, intrinsic energy based upon level, spin patterns, ..... even attraction between individuals works very similar to a covalent bond while spiritual growth functions similar to an ionic bond.
Well, so much for anything that writer has to say.
Science exists, of course, to justify political change. Scientists are privy to the Secrets of the Universe and can design Utopia for the Academicians and Politicians to implement and manage.
Why is there a debate on the definition of science?
Because science has become politicized.
You see it in global warming/climate change, where evidence is manipulated (temperature records altered, models with a temperature plus factor) and conspiracies to silence alternative views while screaming “the science is settled!” All to promote an agenda that mandates control over energy use and resource use that mirrors what they said we had to do in response to global cooling.
You see it in the social sciences where they come up with studies that “prove” conservatives are less intelligent, backward, bad while liberals and atheists meet all measures of “better”. I’ve participated in political science and psychology studies for pay, and they consider novelty seeking behavior a good and conservatism bad. Ditto for studies that advocate wild changes in social structure like same sex marriage, when studies like the Regernus one show children raised in the average same sex household have life outcomes akin to single mothers - and a child of the opposite sex of the parents does WORSE than with a single mother.
This is the slippery slope we face today. The uncovering of existing truths that happened every few decades are no longer coming at the same pace. It may take generations to get to the next one, but who wants to wait for that? It is the “me” generation. Let’s just redefine what science is. Let’s redefine the word empirical.
Heck....better yet, lets eliminate objective truth completely.
This is how we have agw being considered science, based on consensus of weak minds.
Truth just IS. You can’t redefine it away. You can try, but at your own peril.
"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".
Wow. Great article. Certainly a great deal there to ponder for a long while to come.
Thanks for Posting. Thanks for Pinging.