Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Saturday June 06 2015, @10:18PM   Printer-friendly

Adam Frank and Marcelo Gleiser write in the NYT that two leading researchers, George Ellis and Joseph Silk, recently published a controversial piece called "Scientific Method: Defend the Integrity of Physics" that criticized a newfound willingness among some scientists to explicitly set aside the need for experimental confirmation of today's most ambitious cosmic theories — so long as those theories are "sufficiently elegant and explanatory." Whether or not you agree with them, Ellis and Silk have identified a mounting concern in fundamental physics: Today, our most ambitious science can seem at odds with the empirical methodology that has historically given physics its credibility:

Chief among the 'elegance will suffice' advocates are some string theorists. Because string theory is supposedly the 'only game in town' capable of unifying the four fundamental forces, they believe that it must contain a grain of truth even though it relies on extra dimensions that we can never observe. Some cosmologists, too, are seeking to abandon experimental verification of grand hypotheses that invoke imperceptible domains such as the kaleidoscopic multiverse (comprising myriad universes), the 'many worlds' version of quantum reality (in which observations spawn parallel branches of reality) and pre-Big Bang concepts. These unprovable hypotheses are quite different from those that relate directly to the real world and that are testable through observations — such as the standard model of particle physics and the existence of dark matter and dark energy. As we see it, theoretical physics risks becoming a no-man's-land between mathematics, physics and philosophy that does not truly meet the requirements of any.

Richard Dawid argues that physics, or at least parts of it, are about to enter an era of post-empirical science. "How are we to determine whether a theory is true if it cannot be validated experimentally?" ask Frank and Gleiser. "Are superstrings and the multiverse, painstakingly theorized by hundreds of brilliant scientists, anything more than modern-day epicycles?"


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by VortexCortex on Sunday June 07 2015, @01:46AM

    by VortexCortex (4067) on Sunday June 07 2015, @01:46AM (#193090)

    I thought we already had a non-empirical theoretical field, it's called philosophy. Add a heaping helping of mathematics, thermodynamics and cybernetics to epistemology and you can get information theory. Add a smidgen of test cases to sociology and you get, well, mostly debunked conjecture but what's left is behavioral science. Add some Darwinian selection to psychology to explain how emergence of brain parts influence action and reaction and you get evolutionary psychology -- which still lacks some empiricism, but is a step in the right direction since its predictions can be tested via neurology.

    The really troubling thing is the politicization of science. I'm not anti-AGW, but the way that things like Climate Change are being argued, as if there can be no counter claims -- labeling skeptics as "deniers", and even going so far as to suggest such people are guilty of treasonous acts (seriously, Coast Guard cadets were actually told if they questioned Climate Change it was Dereliction of Duty); It all seems like a step backward into sensational scaremongering. The foundation of Science is that it can be challenged openly -- Often by people who support the thing they're challenging -- without fear of politics or feelings getting in the way. E.g., Newton sought to disprove Gravity and was deeply troubled by his discovery for all his days.

    In the areas where we have no reliable way of testing the purely theoretical will thrive. However, as soon as we have a means of testing or contrary evidence to entrenched belief, science must be ready to accept the changes, not reject them based on "97% of climate scientists agree". Furthermore, when one does some fact checking one realizes that there's much more uncertainty and speculation than consensus, but the media has politicized science (perhaps to support a Carbon Credit cash grab, just saying).

    An AC above posts:

    ...and therefore climate change is not real... The End... (you know it's coming).

    Which is the opposite of what TFA would suggest. It's very difficult to test climate change empirically since we don't have a control-group Earth. IMO, we should at least try influencing global climate to see if we can or not and get some hard evidence one way or the other, esp. since Cloud Seeding (and other Chemtrails) have proven effective for short-term weather manipulation, e.g., in Beijing for the Olympics. [independent.co.uk] TFA suggests that if this trend continues that empirically untestable theories such as climate change would be given more consideration than less.

    TFA suggests that unevidenced theories that build upon other (perhaps evidence backed) theories would hold more sway. That's fine, IMO, so long as it doesn't devolve into the dearth of rationality found in social sciences due to the whole "hard sciences aren't the only way to do studies" bullocks. Such practices lead to stronger belief in things like Microsoft / Bilderberg's "Misogyny in STEM" manufactured crisis -- well, their argument was "sound", it can be argued that equal opportunity should yield equal outcome [youtube.com] (but only if you ignore all evidence to the contrary [wikipedia.org] and imagine that the brain, one of the largest and most expensive organs, is immune to the sexual dimorphism which greatly affects all other organs [youtube.com]). That is the danger of non empirical theories being accepted: Politicization and Censure of Science (seriously, that last link discusses censorship in medical science due to social sciences considered to be on equal (or greater) standing compared to empirical studies).

    More to the point: "How are we to determine whether a theory is true if it cannot be validated experimentally?" Well, how is such a theory even useful if it can't make accurate / testable predictions? What does it matter if your theory isn't any less valid or useful than an understanding of the universe as a cybernetic feedback loop emerging within the meta-verse from the mind of a cosmic autistic child? If a theory can make good predictions then we've verified it experimentally. If it can't then it's just a new branch of philosophy or religion. That's not to say all unevidenced theories should be discounted, sometimes it takes decades and development in other fields before a theory becomes testable. My point is to be aware of those who seek to politicize science and promote pseudoscience as being as valid as theories backed by empirical evidence. Willingness of physicists to abandon reliance on the empirical method will be cited by these ideological zealots to further their agenda.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by melikamp on Sunday June 07 2015, @09:52AM

    by melikamp (1886) on Sunday June 07 2015, @09:52AM (#193198) Journal

    I'm not anti-AGW,

    Are you sure?

    but the way that things like Climate Change are being argued, as if there can be no counter claims

    Strawman [wikipedia.org]

    labeling skeptics as "deniers",

    Skeptic: someone who habitually doubts beliefs and claims presented as accepted by others, requiring strong evidence before accepting any belief or claim. Those whore ignore all of our best evidence can and should be properly labeled as deniers rather than skeptics.

    The foundation of Science is that it can be challenged openly

    Can you please point us in the direction of recent scientific papers which challenge the basics of anthropogenic contribution to the current global warming? As in, studies which show that the human factor is insignificant to the point that cutting carbon emissions won't help? Or studies which show that the past carbon emissions due to humans did not actually make much of a difference? Or studies which show that the planet is not warming? I honestly want to see some of these, as it would let me sleep better at night, but to the best of my knowledge, there ain't fucking any.

    It's very difficult to test climate change empirically since we don't have a control-group Earth.

    I am no climate scientist, but I smell a turd of an argument nonetheless. Should we doubt the age of the Earth too? Should we doubt the age of the observable universe because we don't have means to test the big bang or check the control group universes? You don't seem to understand how the AGW argument works. I tell you right now: I don't either, because it seems to be a rather complicated argument, but notice how I am not rushing to concluding it's all politics. I don't dismiss scientific results just because I don't understand them; in fact, I only dismiss them when I do understand them well enough to see they are trash.

    IMO, we should at least try influencing global climate to see if we can or not and get some hard evidence one way or the other

    Why? We already influenced the global climate, and did so without even trying, which is exactly the conclusion of extremely conservative IPCC reports. Here's some trivia: we destroyed half [wikipedia.org] of the Earth's mature tropical forests since 1852. Do you think the climate was not affected? I mean, does it seem plausible to you?

    • (Score: 2) by melikamp on Sunday June 07 2015, @09:56AM

      by melikamp (1886) on Sunday June 07 2015, @09:56AM (#193201) Journal
      "whore ignore" -- some typo :)
      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday June 07 2015, @10:36AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday June 07 2015, @10:36AM (#193217) Journal

        I think that whole "whoosh" theory of quantum relativity is just wrong because it brings out people who deny they are climate-change deniers, and everyone knows there is no empirical way to proof either a double negative or a "whoosh" that occurs "at a large fraction of C". Einstein, infinity: here, gentlepersons, we at long last have proof. I would like to name this the "Quadruple Whoosh Test of the Infinity of Human Ignorance, and proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming". Credit Melikamp.