pure philosophy disguised as science. no testable hypotheses or predictions. no mathematical necessity. no empirical way to measure a string at all. just some fringe scientists thinking up some cool ideas that admittedly are fun to imagine, but are completely non-scientific. i dont begrudge them for thinking up the idea, of course.
however, when they pass this stuff off as science, even only as “fringe science”, they are liars. string theory, M-theory, wormhole time travel and Many Worlds Interpretations… they are all philosophy lacking science. why do these so-called scientists pass this stuff off as if it were dogma, or even “a bit controversial but nonetheless still scientific” dogma?
to enhance their images, or their rating on the History Channel? to sell more books? to get chicks? i have no idea.
but i for one am getting a bit tired of it. kaku and all the rest seem to be using their positions as scientists to aquire new fame as science fictionists pandering to an ignorant but curious public. this seems quite an abuse of their scientific credibility.
nah people just finally realized if we relied on empiricism to believe in anything, we’d regress back to the dark ages. Empiricism and making up random bullshit are nearly the same thing: fun to do, but not really useful for much. In fact, the irony is empiricism is its based off assumptions to begin with.
Just because assuming (and thus thinking and acting based off) the existence of things that have not been (and perhaps cannot be) empirically validated is productive in achieving certain goals
(whether that be a general preventing of “bad” experiences, or successfully predicting quantum activity by utilizing virtual particles in one’s calculations),
is not proof that those things actually exist (outside one’s imagination).
that my OP here seems to you to fall underneath the general umbrella of extreme scientific skepticism which you worship so much is of no concern to me; my points in this thread do not come from a place of extreme skepticism of science or anything else. they come from common sense and consistent observation.
but, if you want to misinterpret my OP here as if it lends some sort of legitimacy to whatever it is that you crusade for, please, be my guest.
It doesn’t seem to me to fall under any categorical “extreme scientific skepticism”… as I see, the general tendency (in which it falls) is most accurately described as the delusion that some imagined (subjective) object or purpose also exists (as one subjectively experiences) outside of that subjective experiences (of it).
The skepticism I value applies to this tendency in all regards; it may seem like I have some “extreme scientific skepticism”, but that’s mostly because it’s unusual for one to exercise skepticism towards explanations (I call them “myths”) emphasizing facts found through more advanced technology (coming about as a result of utilizing the scientific method).
how do you differentiate ‘empiricism’ from ‘science’, and why is reliance solely on empiricism so bad as to cause such a detrimental effect of returning us to the dark ages?
This is the second post in a row I have read in which 3X just keeps asking “why?” in some long winded response. It reminds me a lot of family guy when peter remembers the great past philosopher griffin. (looks to the sky raising his hand and profoundly states… why?!
youre right, clearly we should never try to get clarification on what someone else is saying. better to just keep talking past each other and thus make no progress whatsoever.
I think what Duality is getting at is that all scientific claims, be it string theory or gravity, are based on assumptions which we can never prove beyond doubt. Some are more accepted than others, because well, ideas like gravity just makes so much sense. However that it is the best explanation we have for why we stay on the ground doesn’t make it so. Science makes conclusions from what it observes. But we have no means of checking that what we observe is true and will always be true.
Empiricism is taking what we experience to be true. And science is using theses experiences via logical deduction to determine the best explanation for how things work.
its not that ideas like gravity “make sense” or make more sense than ideas like string theory; there is a FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE between these two types of ideas: demonstrability. we can demonstrate that the theory of gravity makes successful predictions and that it is verified by observation, mathematics and logic. these standards, however, do not exist with string theory or other “fringe” “science”.
you can attack or reject the standards of measurement and validity if you wish; you can claim that “science cannot PROVE anything BEYOND DOUBT”, and when you make this claim you are A) holding science to an impossible standard, and B) misunderstanding what knowledge is. but, if thats what you want to do, go for it.
just dont confuse your personal “criticism” (extreme skepticism) of the standards of validity that we use (the only ones that we can ever have available to us: sensory experiences and human logic/mathematics) with a supposed demonstration of a basic lack of differentiation between theories of the string-theory type and the gravity type… regardless of whether the standards of validity that we use are accurate or justified, there is nonetheless a fundamental difference between string-theory type theories and gravity type theories.
one is science, the other is not.
its not about which is RIGHT or not. its about which is JUSTIFIED: which is scientific.
Gravity started life as an idea in Isaac Newton’s head. As you say that idea was put to the test, and repeated tested and verified. Hence its passage from theory to accepted knowledge, as we generally understand the term knowledge
String theory is currently an idea. At present it remains exceedingly difficult to test this theory, so cannot be proclaimed as knowledge, and anyone doing so should rightly be criticized.
That doesn’t mean string theory can’t one day be tested and verified. Science is theories, the ones that work are kept, others are discarded. Generally the ones that provide the best explanation of the phenomeun in question are kept. String theory, at least as I understand provides a reasonable Theory of Everything. However I’m no physicist so what do I know!
yes string theory is an interesting IDEA. we can imagine that it is a ‘theory of everything’ in that we can imagine possible universal string-like structures that underlie all phenomenon in reality, and that are able to explain all known natural laws. but that imagined idea is not SCIENCE.
Quite right. String theory makes no testable predictions and explains no observable phenomena. As such, it is not a theory. It’s a hypothesis. There’s nothing wrong with a hypothesis. But after 25 years of total world domination and no evidence to support it, patience has run out. The string hypothesis has run out of time. The party’s over. It’s been sucking the life out of physics for far too long. Time to drive a stake through its heart, nail it down in its pseudoscience coffin, and bury it deep. I happen to have just the thing needed to help with this, and it will be my pleasure to assist.
Still not getting why observation is now the ultimate object of cult worship despite the fact sense perception has shown to be flawed and highly subjective. Yet of course you can demonstrate the truth of something within it’s own closed system, but it is worthless. That is like me trying to demonstrate I exist by existing. Fail.
Check out placebo effects and autosuggestions too.
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
