String wars, Popper and the demarcation problem

[Nearly Sane]

The ongoing arguments on what is science (includes some Carroll just for Vlad)


https://aeon.co/essays/the-string-theory-wars-show-us-how-science-needs-philosophy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The ongoing arguments on what is science (includes some Carroll just for Vlad)


https://aeon.co/essays/the-string-theory-wars-show-us-how-science-needs-philosophy

Call me a cynic but what constitutes science will be down to which side is sexier, better on twitter and who is sleeping with who.......not to mention gallons of turd polish..........in other words ''team anti falsification''.
I see Carroll is already casting himself as being victimised by the ''falsification police''.

[jeremyp]

The ongoing arguments on what is science (includes some Carroll just for Vlad)


https://aeon.co/essays/the-string-theory-wars-show-us-how-science-needs-philosophy

So the article loses credibility almost straight away:

And if the theory [General Relativity] had been tested in 1914 (as was originally planned), it would have been (apparently) falsified.

Lucky Einstein didn't publish the theory until 1915 then.

As regards String Theory, I think the ruckus about it is a storm in a teacup dreamed up by philosophers trying to keep themselves in work. Richard Feynman said this:

In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it. Then we – now don't laugh, that's really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what, if this is right, if this law that we guessed is right, to see what it would imply. And then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

String Theory is somewhere between the guess stage and the computing the consequences stage. Eventually, either somebody will find a way to falsify it and it will stand or fall on experimental results or somebody will find an alternative that can be falsified or at least shows more promise and everybody will forget about it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So the article loses credibility almost straight away:

Lucky Einstein didn't publish the theory until 1915 then.

As regards String Theory, I think the ruckus about it is a storm in a teacup dreamed up by philosophers trying to keep themselves in work. Richard Feynman said this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

String Theory is somewhere between the guess stage and the computing the consequences stage. Eventually, either somebody will find a way to falsify it and it will stand or fall on experimental results or somebody will find an alternative that can be falsified or at least shows more promise and everybody will forget about it.

I don't think string theory is the focus of the article which IMHO is the demarcation issue in science.

The author, himself, an atheist previously has written on Carroll's motivation as a string theorist and multiverse proponent showing concerns that his motivations are antitheistic or pro philosophical naturalism
since Carroll let it slip that the single universe theory and it's apparently fixed constants was somehow according to Carroll a problem.

[Nearly Sane]

So the article loses credibility almost straight away:

Lucky Einstein didn't publish the theory until 1915 then.

I asked the author about this and he claims that it was a typo which I pointed out didn't really make sense in context  as he said it should be 1919 but he stuck to it being a typo. (Note I think Eddington planned an earlier test in 1919 but haven't verified this)   That there is an error such as this doesn't reall mean that the whole credibility of the article falls and most of the commentary after in terms of the current delineations in what makes something science is fairly well known.

As regards String Theory, I think the ruckus about it is a storm in a teacup dreamed up by philosophers trying to keep themselves in work. Richard Feynman said this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

String Theory is somewhere between the guess stage and the computing the consequences stage. Eventually, either somebody will find a way to falsify it and it will stand or fall on experimental results or somebody will find an alternative that can be falsified or at least shows more promise and everybody will forget about it.

I doubt there are that many philosphers kept in wok by this and much of the dispute as is clear in the article is rasied by the scientists rasising the hypothesis. Note the article effectively agrees with the point that Feynman made and points out that this progress to verification isn't necessarily against Popper's position.


I think the issue is one that is is more psychological than philosophical in that the attempts by some scientists to talk of a non empirical science is merely to cover up their lack of comfort at not currently knowing any ways of falsification. Once upon a time that sort of speculation and hypotheising would have been seen to be fine and perfectly scientific but Popper's attempts at addressing the demarcation problem have become ingrained so that without the falsigication people feel worried that it isn't science. That a process might be stretched out seems to me to not rule out falsification.


I sense that some of this discomfort comes as we see science in the light of disputes with religion - I can see no reason why Carroll debated WLC for example.