Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 09:23am PT
|
So, there is at least that reason to believe that it may well be correct.
In other words, thinking strictly empirically, there is evidence in favor of string theory, even if it's not "known" to be correct or "testable" yet.
there is no "evidence" in favor of string theory, it was invented as a way of unifying gravity with the other forces, but that alone does not constitute "evidence."
Not only that, the program seems to be failing, that is, the unification scale for the strong interaction and the electro-weak interaction may be higher than thought, as evidenced by the lack of evidence from the LHC at CERN; that scale now apparently much higher than physically relevant theories require.
While a large number of physicists work on string theory, this is really a guess by them on what might be the basis of a future explanation. However, there are many speculative theories regarding gravity, and in the end it will be the collective efforts of both theorists and experimentalists to resolve.
So there are things you could identify as "rational" and "empirical" processes involved; however, parsing the process into a philosophical context will have to wait until the process is complete. As philosophy has no way of "predicting" the outcome, it will only offer an explanation after the fact.
In spite of the great success of particle physics in explaining the universe after 120 years (the discovery of the electron starting the whole thing), there is an abundance of evidence that we have only been looking at a small part of the entire universe, the luminous parts... diverted as it were by the shinny objects, while the bulk remained largely undetected.
There is "reason to believe" that our theories are correct, those reasons largely rest on the ability to predict the outcome of experiment and anticipate observation. For the philosophical discussion we're having here, the difference between falsification and confirmation are held up as if they are absolute arbiters of "truth." Popper may have proposed that science can only falsify theory, he left undiscussed the use of the results of non-falsified theory, the calculations so necessary to realize technological application of the theory.
One could say these calculations are not-true, and if so said, how could you use them to, say, build a bridge?
And if you say that they are an approximation to "truth," you are changing the meaning of truth in some fundamental way.
Yet you and others have no qualms about using these calculations, sometimes implicitly and sometimes explicitly, in all sorts of activities, some of which have life-or-death consequences. Apparently the philosophical notion of falsification and confirmation, at least as are being discussed here, do not capture the full picture.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 09:27am PT
|
Long term survival, through multiple boom and bust cycles...
Yes, I think I see this in our future. I mean if I had to guess among the map of possibilities.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 01:56pm PT
|
Consider Hegel's dialectic.
as a method?
as interesting as discussion is, we run up against the concreteness of empiricism, and while MikeL will describe all the cognitive limitations there, this provides a much needed jolt to our rational process.
"String theory" is a pretty theory, it "makes sense," it explains a lot about the observed universe, it has mathematical beauty, it has the promise of a physical theory.
And it may be wrong.
Wouldn't be the first time.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 03:34pm PT
|
Ed: . . . while MikeL will describe all the cognitive limitations there . . . .
No I won’t be. I’m reporting and summarizing studies. I can go a bit deep now and then, but I stopped reading avidly well over a decade ago, maybe two.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 03:47pm PT
|
Ed nails it again.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 04:06pm PT
|
So are you saying because you accept the wisdom you are religious?? A religious atheist?
Honestly this is just exhausting, if you are accepting religious wisdom you are accepting religious thought. I mean really how hard is that to comprehend? You don't have to believe in God to see the importance of theology or religion or to accept and understand the value of religion. I mean where did you people go to school? Amazing. Scientists? Really?
Paul, you said you are an atheist. You are arguing for the acceptance of religious wisdom. You asked if one accepts such wisdom then how are they not are religious. That's why I asked you if you are saying acceptance of its wisdom makes one religious, and are you a religious atheist. Seems contradictory ain't it.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 04:16pm PT
|
sempervirens: Science is not concerned with emotion so it doesn't address tragic nature.
(BTW, you need to do a little reading. Start with Damasio.)
P.S. Go to Google Scholar and put in "cognition and emotion." There are 1.96 million hits.
MikeL, you left off the context. I was responding to a statement about science and human tragedy. Sure science can study emotion, Damasio et al. On that we agree. But science is not concerned with anyone's emotional reaction to its experiments, observations, analysis, etc. even if those experiments are concerned with emotion. And so science does not help one reconcile human tragedy. Now you see the context.
Your previous response about logic and the appreciation of beauty also missed the context. I agree the commenter was not using logic in the appreciation. He was using flawed logic in his explanation of how science and religion address (or fail to address) beauty. See the difference.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 04:25pm PT
|
And to think MikeL called me out earlier today with this...
"You run fast and free with language. You are not careful or circumspect."
lol
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 04:29pm PT
|
I think its just as wrong to try and strip a person of her faith as attempting to force her to a new faith.
DMT
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/23/india-blasphemy-jesus-tears
When water started trickling down a statue of Jesus Christ at a Catholic church in Mumbai earlier this year, locals were quick to declare a miracle. Some began collecting the holy water and the Church of Our Lady of Velankanni began to promote it as a site of pilgrimage.
So when Sanal Edamaruku arrived and established that this was not holy water so much as holey plumbing, the backlash was severe. The renowned rationalist was accused of blasphemy, charged with offences that carry a three-year prison sentence and eventually, after receiving death threats, had to seek exile in Finland.
When the state "miracle" was pronounced, he went to Mumbai and found that the dripping water was due to clogged drainage pipes behind the wall where it stood. His revelation provoked death threats from religious zealots and ultimately charges of blasphemy under the Indian penal code in the Mumbai high court.
DMT,
Trying to get someone to change their faith is probably as pointless as arguing on supertopo.
But the above article is an example of why I think it is moral to at least try.
Beside the death threat and threat of prosecution, some of the locals were kissing the wet [from sewage] image.
When faith triumphs over things like basic hygiene, pushback is warranted.
|
|
okay, whatever
climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 04:32pm PT
|
I agree with whatever post said that we should listen to Ed Hartouni, and then adjust our ideas of science according to whatever drugs we're ingesting (just kidding on that!). Ed Hartouni is a legitimate, thoughtful, physicist. I listen to what he has to say. And he also obviously enjoys going out and climbing.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 04:45pm PT
|
"String theory" is a pretty theory, it "makes sense," it explains a lot about the observed universe, it has mathematical beauty, it has the promise of a physical theory.
And it may be wrong.
Wouldn't be the first time.
Thanks for the share.
Science is so much fun...
... dancing on the edge of known.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 05:52pm PT
|
And it may be wrong.
Wouldn't be the first time.
So that's why you people think everything you know nothing about is automatically WRONG ......
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 06:18pm PT
|
Werner, It's humble to be perfectly clear that you're likely to be wrong. You should try it sometime, it's really OK and even kind of exciting.
And, then you're leaping into the journey of the real.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 06:42pm PT
|
"Werner, It's humble to be perfectly clear that you're likely to be wrong. You should try it sometime, it's really OK and even kind of exciting. "
Werner is just one of god's fallen angels...he just doesn't know it.
:-).
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 07:06pm PT
|
Let me explain it again since it went over the top of yer heads.
You go to the mechanic and he sees the ball joint broken on the control arm of your car and tells you it is broken and needs to be replaced.
Instead, you'll say he's wrong and it's really the steering wheel that's the problem because you know nothing about the mechanics of the car, to begin with, because YOU need to be RIGHT ......
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 07:15pm PT
|
It's really a bad analogy, Werner.
But, If my FJ60 needed fixing I'd sure figure you'd know what it needed.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 07:23pm PT
|
It's really a bad analogy
Not really.
Bad ball joints transfer vibrations into the steering wheel .....
But in the case of a guy like Bob D he won't even be in the ballpark.
He'll tell the mechanic he's wrong because his balls are OK because he's been happily married for 40 some years.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!