The theory of theories

[Nearly Sane]

Is it a hypothesis? Is it a theory? No, it's superstring!





http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/10/why-trust-a-theory-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-scientific-method/

[Udayana]

Yes, very interesting NS. These problems are not likely to be solved soon, if ever.

[Sriram]

Ah....finally a discussion on the Scientific Method itself.  Long over due!  (I haven't read the link yet...just responding to the link title)

[Nearly Sane]

Ah....finally a discussion on the Scientific Method itself.  Long over due!  (I haven't read the link yet...just responding to the link title)

Finally? There have been any number in various guises over the years and all the questions about how you have a methodology for anything that is not a scientific claim are addressing that.

The link though is about a specific issue and we need to be careful that the issues it addresses are not simply used to import Woo in the same deepities as are used in quantum theory.

[Sriram]

What is 'woo' today could be a new reality tomorrow....once we gain enough knowledge to understand it.  So...we should first of all stop demarcating things into 'woo' and such other whimsical categories.

Methodologies evolve  over time to accommodate our new experiences. Or rather...they should. Methodologies should not dictate our understanding of reality. Reality should dictate the methodology.  Abstract and non-concrete aspects of reality cannot be examined using the same methodologies that we use in normal physics.

[Shaker]

What is 'woo' today could be a new reality tomorrow....once we gain enough knowledge to understand it.  So...we should first of all stop demarcating things into 'woo' and such other whimsical categories.

Not until and unless we come into possession of said knowledge, sunshine

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not until and unless we come into possession of said knowledge, sunshine

But at least one  advocating multiverse, string theory as well as the retirement of falsification from science is a 'Latter day antitheist and philosophical naturalist saint' step forward Sean Carroll.

[Shaker]

But at least one  advocating multiverse, string theory as well as the retirement of falsification from science is a 'Latter day antitheist and philosophical naturalist saint' step forward Sean Carroll.

Ah yes, your other obsession du jour.

[Sriram]

Not until and unless we come into possession of said knowledge, sunshine

And how exactly will you come into possession of such knowledge unless you make efforts to acquire it? Its not going to fall on your lap on its own.

[Shaker]

And how exactly will you come into possession of such knowledge unless you make efforts to acquire it? Its not going to fall on your lap on its own.

By using a solid and successful methodology which serves us wonderfully well and shows its worth every single day, of course.

[Sriram]

By using a solid and successful methodology which serves us wonderfully well and shows its worth every single day, of course.

Such as using a microscope to view the stars just because it has been useful in looking at body cells?

[Shaker]

Such as using a microscope to view the stars just because it has been useful in looking at body cells?

No, you use a telescope for that.

Different instrument.

Same methodology, though

[Walt Zingmatilder]

By using a solid and successful methodology which serves us wonderfully well and shows its worth every single day, of course.

Science? But we are dealing here with insiders including beloved philosophical naturalists and antitheists seeking to subvert and pirate science for their own agendas namely antitheism, status, power and influence.

What they haven't thought out though is if it is OK to call stuff not in 'The methodology' science then where does it stop?

[Sriram]

No, you use a telescope for that.

Different instrument.

Same methodology, though

How would you know that a telescope s required and how would you go about inventing one if you keep dismissing all cosmic phenomena as 'woo'?

[Shaker]

How would you know that a telescope s required and how would you go about inventing one if you keep dismissing all cosmic phenomena as 'woo'?

Galileo didn't dismiss cosmic phenomena as woo. He saw a problem that needed to be addressed (seeing celestial objects more clearly than the naked eye can) and came up with a technical solution to said problem.

As I said, the appropriate tool for the job in hand, but one based on the same methodology. That's the point.

[Sriram]

Galileo didn't dismiss cosmic phenomena as woo. He saw a problem that needed to be addressed (seeing celestial objects more clearly than the naked eye can) and came up with a technical solution to said problem.

Exactly!  He was a visionary. We need more such visionaries who don't dismiss phenomena but address them. Only then new techniques and even new methodologies will develop to solve the problem. Calling something 'woo' and sitting tight with old methodologies and techniques is not enough.

[Shaker]

Exactly!  He was a visionary. We need more such visionaries who don't dismiss phenomena but address them. Only then new techniques and even new methodologies will develop to solve the problem. Calling something 'woo' and sitting tight with old methodologies and techniques is not enough.

So you're saying then that Galileo didn't adopt the scientific method in what he did but rubbed some crystals, lit a joss stick, put his whale song CD on and hoped for the best?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you're saying then that Galileo didn't adopt the scientific method in what he did but rubbed some crystals, lit a joss stick, put his whale song CD on and hoped for the best?

There are certain things fundamental to the methodology. It is antitheists and philosophical naturalists who want these things out.

[Shaker]

There are certain things fundamental to the methodology.

Which are?

It is antitheists and philosophical naturalists who want these things out.

Oh, that naughty lot of scamps!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which are?

testable hypotheses , falsifiability?

They're not scamps they're chumps.............

[Shaker]

testable hypotheses , falsifiability?

Better tell Sriram. He seems to think we need less of this and more dreamcatchers and patchouli.

[Dicky Underpants]

Better tell Sriram. He seems to think we need less of this and more dreamcatchers and patchouli.

[jeremyp]

What is 'woo' today could be a new reality tomorrow.

I doubt it, it has never happened before.

[Sriram]

I doubt it, it has never happened before.

Why do you say that?  So many modern discoveries and inventions would have been considered as miraculous and 'woo' some centuries back. Today it is normal.

Its all about expanding our vision and integrating more and more aspects of reality into our fold. 

The only problem presently is in regarding current methodologies and techniques as irreplaceable and unquestionable. That makes science  as dogmatic as other beliefs and prevents fresh knowledge from beyond our normal sensory perceptions.

[Outrider]

What is 'woo' today could be a new reality tomorrow....once we gain enough knowledge to understand it.  So...we should first of all stop demarcating things into 'woo' and such other whimsical categories.

No. What is woo is woo - that there might be new discoveries tomorrow which at some point in the future mean that these claims turn out to be true doesn't stop them being woo. Woo is not a statement that the claims are false, but that the claims are unjustified, and that doesn't change even if it turns out they are right.

Methodologies evolve  over time to accommodate our new experiences. Or rather...they should. Methodologies should not dictate our understanding of reality. Reality should dictate the methodology.  Abstract and non-concrete aspects of reality cannot be examined using the same methodologies that we use in normal physics.

No, the methodology stays the same: do we have an observable phenomenon that is verifiable, and if so what patterns can we identify in it that can be investigated? What possible explanations are there that are testable that fit the evidence? How can we test those explanations.

That methodology will not change - what are detectable phenomena might change, what are the possible explanations that fit the evidence might change, but the methodology itself will not.

O.