Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics

  • Thread starter Thread starter fnr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem is taking these speculative theories as descriptions of the way things actually are. They are analogies which can only be taken so far even if they don’t fall apart (because they are untestable). As long as we are aware that we are engaging in a creative artsie activity rather than actual science, no harm done. Star Trek does not undermine astrophysics. That said, maybe Nature should follow what the article is saying and not publish that sort of stuff.
 
Aloysium said:
The problem is taking these speculative theories as descriptions of the way things actually are. They are analogies which can only be taken so far even if they don’t fall apart (because they are untestable). As long as we are aware that we are engaging in a creative artsie activity rather than actual science, no harm done. Star Trek does not undermine astrophysics. That said, maybe Nature should follow what the article is saying and not publish that other sort of stuff.
Click to expand...
Karl Popper: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.
 
Bahman said:
Karl Popper: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.
Click to expand...
“Theorist and philosopher Richard Dawid and cosmologist Sean Carroll have countered those criticisms with a philosophical case to weaken the testability requirement for fundamental physics.”
 
Aloysium said:
“Theorist and philosopher Richard Dawid and cosmologist Sean Carroll have countered those criticisms with a philosophical case to weaken the testability requirement for fundamental physics.”
Click to expand...
There is not such a thing like fundamental physics which can explain the whole reality.
 
Bahman said:
There is not such a thing like fundamental physics which can explain the whole reality.
Click to expand...
That is part of what the article is addressing:
. . . the premise might be wrong. There may be no need for an overarching theory of four fundamental forces and particles if gravity, an effect of space-time curvature, differs from the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces that govern particles. And with its many variants, string theory is not even well defined: in our view, it is a promissory note that there might be such a unified theory.
Click to expand...
 
From the article: “To state that a theory is so good that its existence supplants the need for data and testing in our opinion risks misleading students and the public as to how science should be done and could open the door for pseudoscientists to claim that their ideas meet similar requirements.”

Precisely. Although the authors don’t mention it by name, this approach would validate Intelligent Design as ‘science.’ If all we need is ‘elegance’ and ‘explicative force’, then perhaps I.D. should be taught in science classrooms…! :nope:
 
The door to non-testable acceptance as theory was opened with the introduction of the inflation model to the Big Bang theory. Once the door was opened we are starting to really get the “why not our model?” surge. That’s why it’s now being done in an “explicit” way.

From the Article:
In March, theorist Paul Steinhardt wrote5 in this journal that the theory of inflationary cosmology is no longer scientific because it is so flexible that it can accommodate any observational result. Theorist and philosopher Richard Dawid6 and cosmologist Sean Carroll7 have countered those criticisms with a philosophical case to weaken the testability requirement for fundamental physics.
Click to expand...
 
fnr said:
nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535

Nature | Comment
Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics
George Ellis & Joe Silk
16 December 2014

Attempts to exempt speculative theories of the Universe from experimental verification undermine science, argue George Ellis and Joe Silk.
Click to expand...
Having a background in science I couldn’t agree more!

Furthermore, they have to get their story straight. When a creationist tries to substitute doctrine for physical science the scientists scream bloody hell. “SCIENTIFIC STATEMENTS MUST BE EMPIRICAL AND TESTABLE.” And rightly so. But when a physicist advances an elaborate theory for everything that is untestable, some of the same people are willing to forego empirical demands and yet call it science.
 
If a " scientific " theory cannot be verified, what earthly good does it have, to massage the egos of " scientific " and cosmogogical personalities? And to what purpose do we bow to men and women who universally disbelieve in the existence of God and ridicule Scholastic Philosophers on the very basis that they themselves champion, unprovable deductions.? And why are we forced, through the government-educational apparatus, to pay for spoiled egos to spend their time deadreaming?

Linus2nd
 
There is one dimension these whiz kids never mention, eternal dimension of heaven. And there is one reality they never mention, the spiritual reality of the human soul, angels, and God.

Linus2nd
 
From the link:
The imprimatur of science should be awarded only to a theory that is testable. Only then can we defend science from attack.

What do you think about this?
 
StrawberryJam said:
From the link:
The imprimatur of science should be awarded only to a theory that is testable. Only then can we defend science from attack.

What do you think about this?
Click to expand...
I think that is correct. Otherwise it is nothing but science fiction.

Linus2nd
 
StrawberryJam said:
From the link:
The imprimatur of science should be awarded only to a theory that is testable. Only then can we defend science from attack.

What do you think about this?
Click to expand...
I agree with it. If it is untestable then it is not science, it is philosophy.
 
Gorgias said:
From the article: “To state that a theory is so good that its existence supplants the need for data and testing in our opinion risks misleading students and the public as to how science should be done and could open the door for pseudoscientists to claim that their ideas meet similar requirements.”

Precisely. Although the authors don’t mention it by name, this approach would validate Intelligent Design as ‘science.’ If all we need is ‘elegance’ and ‘explicative force’, then perhaps I.D. should be taught in science classrooms…! :nope:
Click to expand...
The difference is that we have **direct experience **of intelligent design…
 
tonyrey said:
The difference is that we have **direct experience **of intelligent design…
Click to expand...
I have direct experience of the fortune tellers who advertise on late-night TV. That doesn’t mean that they’re scientific, though… 😉
 
jimmy said:
I agree with it. If it is untestable then it is not science, it is philosophy.
Click to expand...
Do you believe all philosophical propositions and conclusions are untestable?

What is the scientific method based on?
 
Gorgias said:
I have direct experience of the fortune tellers who advertise on late-night TV. That doesn’t mean that they’re scientific, though…
Click to expand...
  1. Is science the sole source of truth?
  2. Is philosophy in the same category as fortune telling?
  3. If not why not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top