5 ms·

It's a good approximation but it misses the mark. String Theory is not verifiable but it's still a scientific theory. Bohmian Mechanics is, some say, by defin

It's a good approximation but it misses the mark. String Theory is not verifiable but it's still a scientific theory. Bohmian Mechanics is, some say, by definition not verifiably different from Quantum Mechanics but it's a scientific theory. You might call them "speculative" scientific theories to save the idea but at the end of the day the Popperian [sic?] view of science is a bit too simplistic to be useful.

darkxanthos 11y ago
This exactly why string theory comes under fire. "Not even wrong" because that would imply falsifiability.
- nerd_stuff 11y ago
  Right, that's exactly why I chose String Theory as an example.
asgard1024 11y ago
I don't understand why should String Theory be labeled as "scientific". Can you explain? Why cannot we be happy just calling it philosophy? To me, "scientific" means "uses scientific method", which in turn is a set of tools that are pretty successful in understanding universe. Scientific method is certainly not fixed set of tools - for example, computer simulation became very useful only recently. Maybe doing whatever string theorists are doing will become useful in the future, and as such their method will become part of scientific method; but since we aren't really sure if string theory itself is true, we can't consider their methodology to be useful (or useless) and so part of scientific method.
- nerd_stuff 11y ago
  It's a good question that I wish I could answer. For me looking into String Theory's status as scientific/not-scientific is a good way to learn that the Popperian view of falsifiable==scientific is a bit too simplistsic and that classifying things as scientific/not-scientific may not even be a productive activity. It's just not that simple. In the meantime it's generally best to listen to scientists talk about it to get a feel for its standing: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/28pzc1/string_theory_what_is_its_status_as_of_now/?ref=search_posts https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/28pzc1/string_t... A good quote from that thread which may answer your question: "Anyways, my point is that String Theory is not just some whacky idea "what if everything was strings" that exists in a vacuum, but is rather a very natural and conservative extension of Quantum Field Theory to a more general and less arbitrary framework." And here's a blog post (series of posts) linked from that discussion which may also help: http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/09/23/quantum-field-theory-string-theory-and-predictions/ http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/09/23/quantum-field-theory...

darkxanthos 11y ago

This exactly why string theory comes under fire. "Not even wrong" because that would imply falsifiability.

nerd_stuff 11y ago
Right, that's exactly why I chose String Theory as an example.

asgard1024 11y ago

I don't understand why should String Theory be labeled as "scientific". Can you explain? Why cannot we be happy just calling it philosophy? To me, "scientific" means "uses scientific method", which in turn is a set of tools that are pretty successful in understanding universe. Scientific method is certainly not fixed set of tools - for example, computer simulation became very useful only recently. Maybe doing whatever string theorists are doing will become useful in the future, and as such their method will become part of scientific method; but since we aren't really sure if string theory itself is true, we can't consider their methodology to be useful (or useless) and so part of scientific method.

nerd_stuff 11y ago
It's a good question that I wish I could answer. For me looking into String Theory's status as scientific/not-scientific is a good way to learn that the Popperian view of falsifiable==scientific is a bit too simplistsic and that classifying things as scientific/not-scientific may not even be a productive activity. It's just not that simple. In the meantime it's generally best to listen to scientists talk about it to get a feel for its standing: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/28pzc1/string_theory_what_is_its_status_as_of_now/?ref=search_posts https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/28pzc1/string_t... A good quote from that thread which may answer your question: "Anyways, my point is that String Theory is not just some whacky idea "what if everything was strings" that exists in a vacuum, but is rather a very natural and conservative extension of Quantum Field Theory to a more general and less arbitrary framework." And here's a blog post (series of posts) linked from that discussion which may also help: http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/09/23/quantum-field-theory-string-theory-and-predictions/ http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/09/23/quantum-field-theory...