Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GenesisNemesis · 07-21-2008, 08:55 PM

Oh, and I just got the pun!

Nice thread title. :blush:

The Dagda · 07-22-2008, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theyeti

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dagda

That might be true outside of science, but I'm afraid there is a formal prerequisite for a scientific theory and that is falsifiability and evidence, string theory has neither.

I'm afraid you are wrong. There are no formal prerequisites for what makes up a scientific theory or for what the precise meaning of "theory" is. There may be colloquial ones, but definitely not formal. Philosophers of science have been trying to come up with such things for decades, and after numerous attempts that were clearly flawed (e.g. Popper) they've basically reached the conclusion that it's not going to happen. There are good scientific practices and bad ones, commonly used colloquial definitions for words like "theory" (for which there are always exceptions), but there is no formalized system for determining when something becomes scientific or for when it reaches the exalted status of "theory".

This is not just semantics either; lots and lots of things in science have a formalized nomenclature. Off the top of my head, that would include biological taxonomy, atomic elements, extrasolar planets, chemical structures, minerals, species names, types of clouds, psychiatric disorders, and... well, you get the idea. In every one of these examples there is a well-defined and concise set of rules to determine what something is to be called and what category it fits into. There are even governing bodies to resolves disputes and eliminate any possibility of ambiguity. This is what it means to have a formalized nomenclature.

There is no such nomenclature for theory, hypothesis, law, etc., and if there were, it would create a morass of historical inconsistencies. Fact is, people are free to use these terms as they see fit. There is, and always has been, and always will be, a great deal of ambiguity in how those terms are used. That's okay. There is no reason why we can't debate the merits of a scientific idea without agreeing on what specific label to attach to it. If the purpose here is to improve communication, then the proper thing to do is to stop obsessing over whether or not String Theory is a "theory" and instead discuss its merits or lack thereof.

theyeti

Whilst I agree there is no over arching definition, there seldom is in anything. There most certainly is a consensus on what makes a scientific theory at a very basic level and string isn't it. Every scientist on the planet agrees that as a minimum a scientific theory must be testable, if it is not then it is not a theory. You find me one scientist that that says you can completely forgo scientific method and call something a theory and I'll show you a String Theorist.

Its fundamental to science at a basic level to maintain scientific method, without it science becomes something else, who's surprised there is such a rift between the empiricists, proper scientists, and the String Theorists, philosophers. They undermine what science is all about with there shenanigans. String theory is a cart before the horse hypothesis, rightly it should be ridiculed, it kinda of has had it coming for decades. And all the while the speculations get more complex and more involved and more inventive, and yet fundamentally nothing actually reflects reality. This is not science this is creative writing.

Quote:

If the purpose here is to improve communication, then the proper thing to do is to stop obsessing over whether or not String Theory is a "theory" and instead discuss its merits or lack thereof.

By undermining its status you do in fact directly challenge the so called theory on its own merits, that is kind of the point.

The proper thing to do is to be clear about what is unsubstantiated hypothesis and what is hard evidence, the term theory does that adequately except in the case of string theory, might as well call Pluto a planet and be done with it.

Antiplastic · 07-22-2008, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James T

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiplastic

... a theory is simply an explanation for a set of facts, and a crappy theory or unparsimonious theory or difficult-to-test theory is still a theory.

Bait and switch, I thought you were supporting the theyeti with your

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiplastic

Did you miss the post immediately above yours where someone pointed out that there is no special definition of "theory" in science?

... Well.

Sorry, I only do complete sentences.

Agrajag · 07-22-2008, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiplastic

Did you miss the post immediately above yours where someone pointed out that there is no special definition of "theory" in science?

Did you miss my post where I linked the definition?

Here I'll cut and paste it for you.

Quote:

The word theory has many distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

According to the National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

Of course you are at liberty to deny that good scientists actually make this distinction and are careful with the terms they use to prevent confusion. You could even hold up the example of String Theo-logical-rists to support your case, however that wouldn't change the fact that they (the string physicists) are misappropriating a scientific term, (in all likelihood) to give their pet hypotheses more credibility (not to mention the funding), while you on the other hand would still be wrong.

Antiplastic · 07-22-2008, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiplastic

Did you miss the post immediately above yours where someone pointed out that there is no special definition of "theory" in science?

Did you miss my post where I linked the definition?

You didn't link to the "definition", you linked to a wikipedia article which (as so often happens on philosophical topics) was tendentious, poorly sourced, and inaccurate. For example, the NAS document which serves as one of the few citations is a promotional brochure aimed at winning points in the culture wars by conforming to a particularly arcane and idiosyncratic fact about American 1st Amendment jurisprudence.

Quote:

Of course you are at liberty to deny that good scientists actually make this distinction and are careful with the terms they use to prevent confusion.

I'd better be, because that's what one has to do to be right. The definition of a theory is a philosophical, not scientific enterprise, and there is no reason to expect scientists to be any better at it than gardeners, or Civil War reenactors. Scientists neither care nor need to care what "the definition of theory" is; they're too busy doing their actual work of predicting the outcomes of future observations and providing ways to control them.

And scientists and everyday people can and do call any general explanation of a thing a theory, and they do so correctly. Just as a car that won't start is still a car, a theory that is not testable is not not a theory, and the Abominable Snowy Poster is correct that you don't get any additional critical mileage out of calling it "not a theory" than you get out of calling a bad painting "not even art". Just discuss the merits.

Quote:

You could even hold up the example of String Theo-logical-rists to support your case, however that wouldn't change the fact that they (the string physicists) are misappropriating a scientific term, (in all likelihood) to give their pet hypotheses more credibility (not to mention the funding), while you on the other hand would still be wrong.

Of course! A vast conspiracy of frauds and knaves to secure funding! One so vast that even the critics of string theory still refer to it as "string theory".

There is an irony here in that you are trying to say that unfalisifiable, self-sealed theories are not "really" theories, but to defend against counterexamples, you say that no true theorist puts sugar in its porridge.

James T · 07-22-2008, 01:40 PM

And many critics of god refer to god as god. I'm sure you (Antiplastic) can find the part of your post I refer to with this criticism.

The Dagda · 07-22-2008, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Friar Bellows

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dagda

Not heard of LQG yet then?

How is Loop Quantum Gravity "more testable" than String Theory?

Actually that was meant to support the idea that its slowly falling out of favour.

As for more testable hypothesis there are several, sadly though I can't link them as they are subscription only. But I think its safe to say there are people who remain closer to a non extra dimensional, more standard model, and this is another area to which people who are unsatisfied with the arm wavery of strings are moving to. 'Bout time if you ask me.

MxM111 · 07-22-2008, 02:09 PM

String theory is definitely a theory. It has assumptions, derivations, conclusions and complex enough to be called a theory. The hypothesis or conjecture itself is that "string theory has something to do with real world".

But even if it has nothing to do with a real world, it is still a theory. It may be "wrong", but theory nevertheless.

Agrajag · 07-22-2008, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiplastic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Did you miss my post where I linked the definition?

You didn't link to the "definition", you linked to a wikipedia article which (as so often happens on philosophical topics) was tendentious, poorly sourced, and inaccurate. For example, the NAS document which serves as one of the few citations is a promotional brochure aimed at winning points in the culture wars by conforming to a particularly arcane and idiosyncratic fact about American 1st Amendment jurisprudence.

Fair point, I know how sniffy some people can be regarding Wikipedia, so here are some other examples of the exact same definition from around the net.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific%20theory
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis.../lawtheory.htm
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

As you can see I did provide you the definition of the term 'Theory' pertinent to it's correct use in science, whether you are able and willing to accept that this definition exists is a matter for you, willful ignorance is always an option.

Quote:

I'd better be, because that's what one has to do to be right. The definition of a theory is a philosophical, not scientific enterprise, and there is no reason to expect scientists to be any better at it than gardeners, or Civil War reenactors. Scientists neither care nor need to care what "the definition of theory" is; they're too busy doing their actual work of predicting the outcomes of future observations and providing ways to control them.

When communicating it is a very good idea to be able to agree on what words mean.
Different groups of people will often have different definitions for the same word dependent upon the need they require the word to fill.
Scientists have a need to differentiate between the body of ideas that are merely speculation, and those that are working models conforming to the empirical evidence currently available, that are falsifiable and that make predictions.
The words they adopted for those roles are 'Hypothesis' and 'Theory'.

You are claiming that having a clearly defined terminology for use in accurate and unambiguous communication about scientific ideas is not something that scientists are concerned about?
Or that definition of terms is a matter for philosophy!?

Sophistry and rubbish!

Quote:

And scientists and everyday people can and do call any general explanation of a thing a theory, and they do so correctly. Just as a car that won't start is still a car, a theory that is not testable is not not a theory, and the Abominable Snowy Poster is correct that you don't get any additional critical mileage out of calling it "not a theory" than you get out of calling a bad painting "not even art". Just discuss the merits.

And saying you are gay just means you are happy right?
Words change their meaning depending on situation and need, yes some people usurp meanings deliberately, but to argue that because definitions are fluid that a word can mean anything just makes you sound like Humpty Dumpty from Alice through the looking glass.

Quote:

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But `glory' doesn't mean `a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again.
"They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs, they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

We agree on definitions so as to be able to communicate, being specific about definitions simply means that you are trying to avoid confusion!
Words are there to communicate, that's all! Sometimes disambiguation is necessary, hence referring to the untestable as hypotheses and the verified as theories is not the same as calling a bad painting 'not even art', it's more like saying that realism in art is different to cubism in art.

Quote:

You could even hold up the example of String Theo-logical-rists to support your case, however that wouldn't change the fact that they (the string physicists) are misappropriating a scientific term, (in all likelihood) to give their pet hypotheses more credibility (not to mention the funding), while you on the other hand would still be wrong.

to which you replied

Quote:

Of course! A vast conspiracy of frauds and knaves to secure funding! One so vast that even the critics of string theory still refer to it as "string theory".

<Sigh>
String 'Theory' is an example of an application of a specific term by a member of the scientific community, this community was previously very careful about it's use of this term, taking great pains to separate it from common parlance.

I am (obviously I thought) not suggesting a conscious conspiracy, rather a willful misappropriation of a more prestigious epitet by overeager physicists.
And most of it's critics refer to it by the name it's commonly known by, often with great scorn.
Remember a community is composed of individuals, it's not as if there is some big book of accepted terms and definitions and so many will naturally default to the wider consensus and looser definition of the word as 'idea' simply because they can't be arsed with all that rigor, but that doesn't mean that such differentiations aren't there, just that they aren't always strictly adhered to.

Quote:

There is an irony here in that you are trying to say that unfalisifiable, self-sealed theories are not "really" theories, but to defend against counterexamples, you say that no true theorist puts sugar in its porridge.

I did not say anything of the sort, what I did say was that unfalsifiable self-sealed hypotheses are not really theories, they are only unfalsifiable self-sealed hypotheses! and that no scientist worth his porridge would mistake one for the other, Now give me some sugar baby!

Lay people and cranks however are frequently led into confusing the two because of sloppy use of an ambiguous term... Hey just like you were doing there

Agrajag · 07-22-2008, 03:39 PM

and some more links as I feel that the point that there is a specific scientific use of the term 'theory' as distinct from the common use of the term cannot be labored enough..

http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/Phys...ce/Theory.html
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy...appendixe.html
http://servercc.oakton.edu/~billtong...ificmethod.htm
http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Theories.shtml
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-60/iss-1/8_1.html

View Poll Results: What should it be called?
String theory	24	44.44%
String conjecture	22	40.74%
or String Voodoo	8	14.81%
Voters: 54. This poll is closed

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-21-2008, 08:55 PM	#31
GenesisNemesis Contributor Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A pale blue oblate spheroid. Posts: 20,351	Oh, and I just got the pun! Nice thread title. :blush:

07-22-2008, 01:40 PM	#36
James T Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: NewØZealand Posts: 4,599	And many critics of god refer to god as god. I'm sure you (Antiplastic) can find the part of your post I refer to with this criticism.

07-22-2008, 02:09 PM	#38
MxM111 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: NJ, USA Posts: 3,397	String theory is definitely a theory. It has assumptions, derivations, conclusions and complex enough to be called a theory. The hypothesis or conjecture itself is that "string theory has something to do with real world". But even if it has nothing to do with a real world, it is still a theory. It may be "wrong", but theory nevertheless.

07-22-2008, 03:39 PM	#40
Agrajag Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: England Posts: 130	and some more links as I feel that the point that there is a specific scientific use of the term 'theory' as distinct from the common use of the term cannot be labored enough.. http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/Phys...ce/Theory.html http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy...appendixe.html http://servercc.oakton.edu/~billtong...ificmethod.htm http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Theories.shtml http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-60/iss-1/8_1.html

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.