Personal View site logo
science 2.0
  • brianlbrianl

    This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific. Chief among the 'elegance will suffice' advocates are some string theorists. Because string theory is supposedly the 'only game in town' capable of unifying the four fundamental forces, they believe that it must contain a grain of truth even though it relies on extra dimensions that we can never observe. Some cosmologists, too, are seeking to abandon experimental verification of grand hypotheses that invoke imperceptible domains such as the kaleidoscopic multiverse (comprising myriad universes), the 'many worlds' version of quantum reality (in which observations spawn parallel branches of reality) and pre-Big Bang concepts.

    These unprovable hypotheses are quite different from those that relate directly to the real world and that are testable through observations — such as the standard model of particle physics and the existence of dark matter and dark energy. As we see it, theoretical physics risks becoming a no-man's-land between mathematics, physics and philosophy that does not truly meet the requirements of any. SNIPPED http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535

  • 9 Replies sorted by
  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    Why it is 2.0? Things written here are just basics of philosophy of science applied to same old field.

  • karlkarl

    Cosmologists are to physicists what astrologers are to astronomers and what alchemists are to chemists. They are just better at camouflaging lack of evidence with lots of math symbols.

    And the string theories are not by far the only attempts on a unified theory. Personally, I find e.g. the Loop Quantum Gravity theory much less implausible than the string theories. And yet, neither matters in a real world where we still lack usable physical models for such mundane things as e.g. precisely predicting the melting points of metal alloys.

  • GeoffreyKennerGeoffreyKenner

    Like in Einstein's time, scientists get stuck at finding answer, I'm pretty sure a small genius will come and tell everyone they haven't looked in the right direction in the coming decades. It'll likely disprove a lot of things which is the specialty of physic making it a science that stands apart. But it's not 2.0, it's just how physic works. First people thought gravity was a force that attract object, then Einstein said it's the mass compressing or extending space and that there are no such force as gravity which is why they used Quantum physic to try filling the gaps that made no sense. Physic just receive an update every 50 years. I think our generation will hear about something quite incredible soon.

    There are huge debates among scientists and philosopher that have been going on though concerning the nature of empirical evidence which is quite interesting. I remember reading something quite interesting in a text of Meillassoux called "Metaphysics and Fiction of the worlds without science" speaking a bit about Popper, Hume and Kant take. What I thought was really good, is that there exist no such law that predict that laws will remain eternally the way there are, meaning that because of contingency, the universe and the laws of physics could just collapse in the next second.

  • brianlbrianl

    2.0 because traditionally scientific theory must be falsifiable, the string guys want to be exempted now because they say being "elegant" and "explanatory" is all you need. No longer must science be empirical.

    That's a big change.

  • IronFilmIronFilm

    I do have a certain weakness for the elegant, but no.... this would be a bad move!

  • GeoffreyKennerGeoffreyKenner

    They've done so for about a century, it's more they choose to acknowledge it "officially" now. We obviously get no empirical evidence from a black hole since it would require thousands of years to reach one and lab don't provide sufficient data to mimic it. No big deal really, many theories in general relativity weren't approved "empirically" before the LHC confirmed what scientists thought yet they used it for the last 50 years to develop new theory.

  • brianlbrianl

    I'm no physicist, but I took some in college (did poorly, was referred to sewing classes) and my recollection was black holes were not of course observed directly, but gravitational effects of BH's on nearbye objects were predicted and then observed.

  • GeoffreyKennerGeoffreyKenner

    "observed" <- that's why empirical evidence isn't enough to push further. The reason is, it doesn't prove black hole exist, it just prove there's a gravitational anomaly. Theory predicts black hole, observation in this case doesn't, it just notices an occurrence but it could be anything since we can not see nor reproduce black hole to be certain they exist. We just "predict" they are since they don't contradict the general theory of relativity. :)

  • FrankGlencairnFrankGlencairn

    Maybe they just asking the wrong guys. If you ask Stephen Hawking about the number of elementary particles that exists, he says over 200. If you ask a Dogon priests he answers 266.

Add a Comment