Friar Bellows

Can you provide me with the actual references to these more testable hypotheses? I'm close to an academic library so it's no problem for me to look them up. If you can't remember or find the references, what about a few keywords that might help me find them?

James T

On reading your post I have the horrible sinking feeling that I have been unintentionally clever.

It also occurs to me I botched the poll question (as usual).

I suspect some of the "theory" people are happy with the terminology without necessarily thinking that string theory is a good scientific description.

Quinn

To me, the universe seems hauntingly arbitrary. Every theory about the fundamental nature of the universe seems to have this arbitrary element.

According to string theory, one-dimensional vibrating "strings" give rise to the universe we all know and love.

How arbitrary.

But all such theories are equally arbitrary. Which, frankly, has long led me to suspect that all possible universes exist. Somewhere, somewhen, out there, is/was/will be a universe that is based on 3-D vibrating "globes". I've no doubt of it. It's probably a pretty wierd universe. But so is this one.

Perhaps that's why string theory doesn't unambiguously predict the universe we inhabit. Perhaps string theory doesn't even describe the universe we inhabit. Perhaps string theory just describes some possibe universe which is in many ways similar to ours.

How would we know whether string theory describes the particular universe we inhabit? We would have to be able to test it.

The Dagda

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...verything.html

Off hand I think there's one or two here, if you have research to an academic library I would imagine they'd stock this magazine. As for the rest they would be harder to track down as its a matter of what I've seen in passing over the years.

And this one.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12891

Agrajag

Not all theories are arbitrary, in fact most are well supported by good evidence, that is to say they describe our universe.

However just as you claim String 'theory' is arbitrary, we have not only not ruled it out as a possibility through experiment, we are unable to do so.
Worse still it doesn't just describe the conditions we find around us, it can be tailored to any conceivable universe, which is why it has been called a theory of anything as opposed to a theory of everything.

You are illustrating perfectly with your post how this sloppy use of the term theory to describe an untested and untestable idea can degrade actual tested and accepted theories in the minds of laypeople, after-all if string theory is a theory, then maybe the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible purple unicorn or intelligent design are also theories.

The Dagda

The Flying Spaghetti monster is an eternal truth and so does not fall into your scientific and rather petty definitions, how dare you! For does it not say:

Ahahhhh matey! There be pirates!

Linguinist menu: IV:IX with a salad side order.

Whilst string theory maybe a religion, I find the assertion that an ancient and well established and undoubtedly proven religion such as ours could be compared to a fad quite insulting.

Antiplastic

From that link: "a theory that explains scientific observations". String theory AIUI does this. Oops!

Inept and incoherent.

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

1) Theories are also educated guesses, based on observation.

2) Hypotheses can be proven true, beyond a reasonable doubt (but not beyond an unreasonable doubt).

Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.

Bzzzt. Wrong. There is evidence for and there is evidence against; "proof" just means subjectively conclusive. There is no logical difference between saying there "might" be one you haven't tried and saying there "might" have been some factor you didn't control for when one succeeded and the other didn't.

Also, "One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis." String theory certainly is, among those who accept it. Oops!

ahem: "Wilstar.com is a family-friendly site featuring holiday history, MIDI music, puzzles, fun science, and thoughtful opinions on relevant issues."

Next.

Except, they never adopted these in any formal way, and none of your links show this, because there is no body that would or even could enforce this terminology retroactively over 400 years of science.

Quick, is the RNA World "Hypothesis" a hypothesis or a theory? How about that branch of applied mathematics called Game "theory"? Is it the Snowball Earth "Theory" or the Snowball Earth "Hypothesis"?Answer: you can't bloody tell from the names, because the terms are nonstandard and arbitrary.

Poof! Away goes the man of straw. Scientists communicate about scientific ideas, like whether the earth was once covered in ice, or whether birds are descended from dinosaurs. No one (except philosophers and lawyers) gives a flip whether they call these ideas "hypotheses" or "theories", because it doesn't matter.

Indeed.

I wonder who you think is arguing that words can mean anything. Perhaps that man to my left made of straw? But let's not get lost here. There are just empirical descriptions, of more or less complexity, of more or less certainty, or more or less predictive power, or more or less generality and scope. There is no qualitative difference that will put all and only the things scientists call "hypotheses" on one side and "theories" on the other side, especially since scientists use these terms interchangeably and have no trouble communicating with one another.

I've noticed that in a lot of the arguments and links in this thread, there has been this equivocation on what exactly is being claimed about String Theory. People are jumping along a continuum of increasingly more modest claims:

• String Theory is "not even a theory"
• String Theory is not a scientific theory, but rather a mathematical or perhaps even philosophical one.
• String Theory is not a good scientific theory, because it is so hard to test.
• String Theory is not an accepted theory in science, since it has not won consensus.

What is wrong with simply arguing #3, or even #2? Why play word games that don't change the facts on the ground? Why not just say (and have me agree with you) that it seems to be a crappy theory because it doesn't seem to make decisive predictions?

Except, they weren't. There never was a time in the last 400 years when the entire physics community (much less, the entire scientific community) operated under a standardized nomenclature, which edenic bliss was corrupted by the arrival of evil quantum sophists. String theorists and their critics called it a theory because it doesn't matter, it's just a fucking name.

So, you agree that there is no big book of accepted terms, and we're just arguing over percentages at this point? That would give us both an out.

Except, every single string theorist and every single critic of string theory that calls it string theory.

The Dagda

I find the whole idea that there is any discussion here rather armusing. It doesn't matter about the evolution of scientific history what was or is a theory. Back in 1460 science was called philosophy so what? At the end of the day in the here and now string theory is not accepted by scientists as a theory. That should be the end of it. No amount of playing around with definitions is going to make the community who have to work every day without ambiguitys suddenly go "no your right folks, the definition is not concrete, lets all just hold hands and be friends." String theory is not a theory, has never been a theory, and to be frank the way it is going is never likely to be one. It is if you ask me about time people stopped wishing that science would be kind and let one sneak under the net just this once: not going to happen, get used to it. String theory is a hypothetical idea that cannot be falsified, that's kind of it. It's not even technically a theory, or a grey area, not even close, the only people who think it is a grey area are String Theorists, and frankly they can bitch all they want, doesn't make what they assert any more true any more than rewriting the definition to suit yourself does.


I'm willing to stake millions of pounds on the fact that if you got ten thousand of the worlds top scientists in a room and asked them to judge whether string theory is a theory the vote would go tragically and majorly against ST. To be honest even half the string theorists would say no. And since this all boils down to consensus, you're kinda shit out of luck because the consensus is no way in hell. Oh and Pluto isn't a planet either, fact.

I think what was said earlier is very true that the term theory was a publicity stunt intended to show it under a more favourable light, the sad thing is that some people actually bought into the propaganda.

I stand by the position: string theory is not a theory, full stop.

Tim Thompson

Methinks this is the real point. After all, "A rose by any other name ..." & etc. In fact, the common man on the street (whatever that really is) typically treats "hypothesis" and "theory" as synonymous anyway, assuming of course that they have ever heard the word "hypothesis" in their lives, which is usually not the case. "String Theory" works for me. I like to minimize polysyllabic meanderings.

But I do disagree on this tactical point. Amongst other things, string theory in fact predicts general relativity (GR). This is a true "prediction", in my opinion, because GR is in no way intentionally built in. Rather, quite to the astonishment of the gathered throngs, the quantum mechanical theory (hypothesis for yee of pure intentions) of strings is found to contain GR within it. Not bad for a "crappy" theory (or a "crappy" hypothesis for yee of still pure intentions). There are of course other predictions regarding supersymmetry which are genuine predictions, and experimentally testable as well, but probably lacking in "decisiveness" for the time being.

But one last point of limited relevance to make ...
I agree with Antiplastic's judgement. First, it's an hypothesis, not a hypothesis!! But more to the point, the idea than an hypothesis is necessarily based on observation is an uneducated & incorrect point of view. In fact, an hypothesis can come from the Great Purple Haze. Observation comes into play during the validation & testing of an hypothesis, but has no necessary connection to its origin.

The Dagda

I think by decisive he means able to be tested and produce evidence, otherwise my hypothesis that because the standard model has a force carrier for each force that there must be a force carrier for gravity would be a theory, when in fact it's merely a hypothesis, its a much better hypothesis than string theory because its relatively easy to test, but then I think there are two types of hypothesis one better than the other:

1) Wild unconfirmable speculation
2) Speculation

I say a hypothesis, because the initial sound is a consonant sound not a vowel. If it was an hour I'd say an not a hour. It's an easy mistake to make. House, horse and so on are examples where a is used. Unless you pronounce it ipothesis I'd use a.