The world will end in 2060, according to Sir Isaac Newton

[Pangloss]

GC:

Please tell me how the String Conjecture is:

". . .well substantiated. . ." The math is elegant, but where is the substantiation?

or

". . .repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation. . ."

or

". . .survived repeated testing. . ."

or

". . .experimentally verified fact. . ."

or

". . .extremely well-substantiated. . ."

or

". . .a step in the scientific method in which a statement is generated on the basis of highly confirmed hypotheses. . ." (emphasis mine).

No tests. No predictions that can yet be subject to experimentation.

Elegant, sort of. Beautiful, without question. But anything more than fantastic math and breathtaking imagination? Not yet.

Pangloss

Postscript: GC, in science, classification errors really do matter. Besides, why is it such a problem to use a term that accurately describes the thing you are talking about? I thought the point of language was to accurately transmit ideas from one person, place or time, to another person, place or time.

- p

 

[gc]

Pangloss,

Please read my post again. I said it does NOT fit with definitions 3, 5, 6, 7 or 9 (8 is debatable).

I thought the point of language was to accurately transmit ideas from one person, place or time, to another person, place or time.

If we could come up with ONE universal definition of the word "theory" it would be much easier to agree on this. My point is that everyone has their own definition, roughly similar but with subtle differences, of the word "theory". Who is to say which one is correct? Why is definition #3 any more valid than definition #2, or vice-versa?

 

[Pangloss]

GC:

If you look at almost all of the definitions you provided, they included the idea that a theory is a part of a hierarchy, and it's place is that of an idea or system or ideas that have been repeatedly or extremely tested and is well substantiated.

The second definition talks about a hypothesis, and says it is a tentative theory that is not yet verified (the String Conjecture could, if one was generous, fit there).

It is an idea that has either been tested and passed, and hence is a theory, or it has not yet been tested in any way, and is at best a hypothesis.

Conjecture, hypothesis, theory, law. The hierarchy.

This is, BTW, high school science.

I do love the Conjecture, though. It is beautiful and scary.

Pangloss

 

[Dexter Sinister]

1st paragraph:

what am i implying it means dex?

The clear implication to me was "only a theory," as if the fact that something is called a theory means it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reality, which is not what theory means in science.

Are you upset for they are playing with the idea that our neural nets are in fact connected to the quantum field. And we keep expierencing same life situations for our nerual nets bring this about. Change your nerual net , or program it in another way to see different effects...Is this what has you upset.

I'm not upset, merely insisting on a proper evidence-based argument. There's no evidence to suggest human neural networks have anything to do with quantum fields.

His theroy was that human emotion effected our enviroment. So various jars were subjected to a human being faceing it and concentrating on a particular emotion.

That's the use of the word 'theory' I was objecting to. He didn't have a theory in the scientific sense, he had a speculation, which he proceeded to test in a completely unscientific and uncontrolled way, so the results don't demonstrate anything conclusively.

Maybe a second viewing you might see something you missed dex.

I doubt it. I know sloppy science when I see it, and I see no reason to subject myself to that crap again.

Strictly speaking, Pangloss has it right. It's not really correct to call anything 'string theory,' though everybody does. It's produced some tantalizing results and some lovely new mathematics for those capable of understanding it (and alas, I'm not among them), but so far, as far as I know, it hasn't produced any testable predictions that differ from what quantum theory or relativity would predict. Fascinating though it is, it's not yet at a point where it could be dignified with the label 'scientific theory.' It's still speculation and conjecture.

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

thanks Dexter for taking the time...lil late for me...and i get the jist of what you are saying...gonna give yours another read....
The neural net stuff spoke about might come off airy fairy8O LOL! but i feel there is some merit in it...then again you have made me have a rethink here....
good stuff
d

 

[RomSpaceKnight]

"It may end later, but I see no reason for its ending sooner," Newton wrote.

There is no prediction of the world's end in 2060, just a probability.

 

[Deafening Silence]

Deafening:

The Queen could call a bag of marbles a peanut butter sandwich; it would still not nourish you and you'd look pretty silly with a mouthful of broken teeth.

No less a mind than Brian Greene (whom I greatly admire) calls it a theory. You are totally correct - a great many folks (perhaps the majority) call it a theory. They are all incorrect.

The mistake here is one of classification; the mistake you make is using an appeal to authority to buttress your argument.

We would not be changing language for me; we would use correct scientific nomenclature for our ideas.

Yes this does matter; especially in the sciences, we must call things what they are or the words used to describe them lose their meaning. Then science loses its meaning, and knowledge is lost.

Any of the other posters here that actually work as researchers (I suspect there are a few), could better explain the dangers of classification errors. I am merely a stagehand.

I trust this was a complete and comprehensible explanation for you, Deafening.

I live but to serve.

Pangloss

Perhaps I was not clear enough for you the first time. I say that you have not supported your claim that it is not a theory. You say I made an appeal to authority, however, I made no claim. I asked you to support yours. That is certainly not a fallacious argument. Your response here is to say everyone is wrong but you and that it is a misclassification.

Again, all I see is verbal bluster and no argument at all. Forgive me if I do not take your word for it. They used information provided scientifically to deduce predictive suppositions. By all the definitions of "theory" I could find, it certainly qualifies. If you want to make a new definition, move the goalposts so to speak, you will need to support it with a lot more than just your personal say so, which seems to be your MO around here.

There is a big difference between making statements and making valid arguments. Perhaps no one has pointed that out to you before, but I am now. So, make a valid argument or retract your unsupported statements. It is the only manly thing to do.

 

[Pangloss]

Dexter:

Could you please help me explain myself to Deafening? Apparently I am being opaque.

I would be much obliged.

Pangloss

 

[Deafening Silence]

Dexter:

Could you please help me explain myself to Deafening? Apparently I am being opaque.

I would be much obliged.

Pangloss

Hmmm. Interesting way to conduct yourself. First, you intentionally misinterpret GC's great post, showing the complex definitions of the word "theory" and showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that string theory fits more than one of them. You respond by sending him what you knew to be strawman arguments. Then when he points that out you ignore him.

I point out that you have made no arguments at all, and your answer is to pretend I don't understand you? That is rich. Your posts are all attitude and no substance whatever. I ask for substance and you send someone else to give it. Am I to assume that is because you have none yourself? Help me understand why you refuse to make an argument rather than an unsubstantiated statement. Is it too hard? What?

 

[Unforgiven]

What is theory if not speculation and conjecture?

The clear implication to me was "only a theory," as if the fact that something is called a theory means it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reality, which is not what theory means in science.

I'm not upset, merely insisting on a proper evidence-based argument. There's no evidence to suggest human neural networks have anything to do with quantum fields.

That's the use of the word 'theory' I was objecting to. He didn't have a theory in the scientific sense, he had a speculation, which he proceeded to test in a completely unscientific and uncontrolled way, so the results don't demonstrate anything conclusively.

I doubt it. I know sloppy science when I see it, and I see no reason to subject myself to that crap again.

Strictly speaking, Pangloss has it right. It's not really correct to call anything 'string theory,' though everybody does. It's produced some tantalizing results and some lovely new mathematics for those capable of understanding it (and alas, I'm not among them), but so far, as far as I know, it hasn't produced any testable predictions that differ from what quantum theory or relativity would predict. Fascinating though it is, it's not yet at a point where it could be dignified with the label 'scientific theory.' It's still speculation and conjecture.

 

[Pangloss]

Hmmm. Interesting way to conduct yourself. First, you intentionally misinterpret GC's great post, showing the complex definitions of the word "theory" and showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that string theory fits more than one of them. You respond by sending him what you knew to be strawman arguments. Then when he points that out you ignore him.

I point out that you have made no arguments at all, and your answer is to pretend I don't understand you? That is rich. Your posts are all attitude and no substance whatever. I ask for substance and you send someone else to give it. Am I to assume that is because you have none yourself? Help me understand why you refuse to make an argument rather than an unsubstantiated statement. Is it too hard? What?

Deafening:

I was attempting to be nice; apparently you simply want to try to wear someone down so you can say you "won."

No, you made no attempt to understand what I wrote, so I shall now ignore your babble, at least on this thread. You are insulting, and it would appear dishonestly thick-headed.

Bait someone else. This could have been an interesting thread, troll.

Pangloss

 

[Unforgiven]

Instead of crying troll, why don't you just show the reasoning to back up your claim?

Deafening:

I was attempting to be nice; apparently you simply want to try to wear someone down so you can say you "won."

No, you made no attempt to understand what I wrote, so I shall now ignore your babble, at least on this thread. You are insulting, and it would appear dishonestly thick-headed.

Bait someone else. This could have been an interesting thread, troll.

Pangloss

 

[Pangloss]

Instead of crying troll, why don't you just show the reasoning to back up your claim?

I have, as you could read if you scrolled up.

Pangloss

 

[Deafening Silence]

Deafening:

I was attempting to be nice; apparently you simply want to try to wear someone down so you can say you "won."

No, you made no attempt to understand what I wrote, so I shall now ignore your babble, at least on this thread. You are insulting, and it would appear dishonestly thick-headed.

Bait someone else. This could have been an interesting thread, troll.

Pangloss

You are nice? Now I know you are a con artist. You were anything but nice to GC. You were smug in your claim that "string theory" is not a theory. You insulted the entire scientific community and said they were all wrong and you were right. All I did was ask you to support your claim. Now you call me insulting and dishonestly thick-headed? And a troll? Ha ha ha.

Yes. You want me to bait someone else so you can go play your word games with people who don't know how to defeat them. You've been called out and you are going to run away. You should be ashamed.

You run the risk of exposing both your cowardice and conceit if you do not answer with the support that has been asked for.

 

[Deafening Silence]

I have, as you could read if you scrolled up.

Pangloss

I will repost your entire support for your position.

Great reading list, and I agree with all you've written on this subject - but for one quibble. Can we please call it the string conjecture? Theory is far too grand for a so far untestable idea; yes the math is great, but all the predictions are a posteriori (sp?). As far as my reading goes, I have yet to find one prediction in the string field that was tested and proven either true or false.

Mind you, just the idea that string stuff is true gives me a major case of the heebie-jeebies. Cool stuff.

Just not much more than a really well fleshed out conjecture.

First, you admit it is a quibble. Then you insist that theory is too grand a word because it is, so far, untestable. You say the math is great. Where do you give any evidence it is not a theory? Let's go to the only other post where you actually mention anything...

If you look at almost all of the definitions you provided, they included the idea that a theory is a part of a hierarchy, and it's place is that of an idea or system or ideas that have been repeatedly or extremely tested and is well substantiated.

The second definition talks about a hypothesis, and says it is a tentative theory that is not yet verified (the String Conjecture could, if one was generous, fit there).

It is an idea that has either been tested and passed, and hence is a theory, or it has not yet been tested in any way, and is at best a hypothesis.

Conjecture, hypothesis, theory, law. The hierarchy.

This is, BTW, high school science.

I do love the Conjecture, though. It is beautiful and scary.

Pangloss

See here is the catch... you say: "almost all of the definitions"...

Now, explain how many definitions a word must meet to be used correctly? The word "run" has 60 definitions. Does it have to meet them all to be used correctly? No. It only needs to meet one. GC showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that it did indeed meet at least one definition. You have not shown any evidence that it does not meet at least one definition of the word.

If you have any other evidence, I'd like to see it. But, I know exactly what you will do.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Let's all try to understand some of the shades of meaning of the word theory, and try to be polite to each other, shall we?

Theory has two broad senses in common use, which I think of as the weak sense and the strong sense. In the weak sense, it's used to mean a belief, conjecture, or speculation. In the strong sense it means a coherent, consistent body of data, ideas, information, and analyses that describe and explain a range of phenomena. Evolution, for instance, is a theory in the strong sense, and people who dismiss it as only a theory are confusing that meaning, sometimes deliberately I think, with the weak sense and committing a common logical error called the fallacy of equivocation.

There are two further divisions in the strong sense: there are scientific theories and non-scientific theories, and the distinction is based on empiricism, which in this context means based on observation and experiment: scientific theories are empirical, non-scientific theories are not. Picture it this way:

Theory

1. Weak Sense
a belief, conjecture, or speculation

2. Strong Sense
a coherent, consistent body of data, ideas, information, and analyses that describe and explain a range of phenomena.

(a) Non-Scientific

(i) Empirical, but not falsifiable, predictive, or testable, like psychoanalysis and, so far, string theory.
(ii) Non-Empirical, also not falsifiable, predictive, or testable, like religious dogma​

(b) Scientific: empirical, falsifiable, predictive, and testable
​

Might be a bit of a stretch to call string theory empirical, there are no observations or experiments that directly suggest it, there are only negatives, like the observed inconsistencies between quantum theory and relativity that indicate some deeper explanation is necessary. The essential point remains, however: string theory is not yet a scientific theory.

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

In super layman's terms tyops and all...
When speaking about Scientific theory isn't it a given that it has gone beyond specualtion and has some base to it that can still be proven in some manner ....Like einstiens theory of the speed of light and when we aproach it time slows down for those travelling at that speed...didn't he prove this mathamatically but cause we have not actually expierenced it we still call it theory?
Are these not the symantics we are getting hung up on here?

they have seen quantum particles turning in both directions at the same time, they have witnessed the same particle in 2 different places at the same time..yet the whole field of quantum mechanics is so vast it all is still called theory?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...Are these not the symantics we are getting hung up on here? ...yet the whole field of quantum mechanics is so vast it all is still called theory?

Well, not really. You're all around it, but not quite on it yet. Einstein had no theory about the speed of light, he simply postulated that the speed of light is always the same for all observers--a perfectly reasonable thing to try based on the results of certain experiments (check Wikipedia for the Michelson-Morley experiment, for example), but so counter-intuitive it took a genius to think of it--and worked out the physical consequences of that mathematically. One consequence is the time dilation you referred to, it has been directly observed, and has to be accounted for in certain engineering applications. GPS systems, for instance, have to correct their internal clocks for it, because the satellites are moving pretty fast, so their clocks run more slowly than ours. There's also another correction necessary because they're in a weaker gravitational field than we are down here on the surface, which also affects the relative rates at which clocks run. Without the corrections, the information you get from a GPS system would be uselessly inaccurate in a matter of hours.

Whether something's called a scientific theory or not is unrelated to whether we can directly experience its results, or the scope of the theory itself. Quantum mechanics and general relativity are scientific theories because they meet the defining criteria: empirical, falsifiable, predictive, and testable. That's all, really.

And while I'm holding forth on the subject, I feel I should add a few words about things being falsifiable. Nobody I've ever spoken to has any trouble understanding why a scientific theory must be empirical, predictive, and testable, but the notion of falsifiability seems to elude a lot of people. Any true claim must, at least in principle, be falsifiable, an idea originally due to Karl Popper, who used it to distinguish science from pseudo-science. It means it must be possible to at least conceive of evidence that would prove the claim to be false, which really just amounts to saying that the evidence must matter. If no conceivable evidence could ever disprove a claim, then the evidence in its favour doesn't matter either, it's invulnerable to any kind of evidence and thus has no empirical merit at all.

Okay, getting down off the soap box now...

 

[Kreskin]

Great discussion. The falsifiable test makes sense. Thanks for the lesson Dexter.

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

Well, not really. You're all around it, but not quite on it yet. Einstein had no theory about the speed of light, he simply postulated that the speed of light is always the same for all observers--a perfectly reasonable thing to try based on the results of certain experiments (check Wikipedia for the Michelson-Morley experiment, for example), but so counter-intuitive it took a genius to think of it--and worked out the physical consequences of that mathematically. One consequence is the time dilation you referred to, it has been directly observed, and has to be accounted for in certain engineering applications. GPS systems, for instance, have to correct their internal clocks for it, because the satellites are moving pretty fast, so their clocks run more slowly than ours. There's also another correction necessary because they're in a weaker gravitational field than we are down here on the surface, which also affects the relative rates at which clocks run. Without the corrections, the information you get from a GPS system would be uselessly inaccurate in a matter of hours.

Whether something's called a scientific theory or not is unrelated to whether we can directly experience its results, or the scope of the theory itself. Quantum mechanics and general relativity are scientific theories because they meet the defining criteria: empirical, falsifiable, predictive, and testable. That's all, really.

And while I'm holding forth on the subject, I feel I should add a few words about things being falsifiable. Nobody I've ever spoken to has any trouble understanding why a scientific theory must be empirical, predictive, and testable, but the notion of falsifiability seems to elude a lot of people. Any true claim must, at least in principle, be falsifiable, an idea originally due to Karl Popper, who used it to distinguish science from pseudo-science. It means it must be possible to at least conceive of evidence that would prove the claim to be false, which really just amounts to saying that the evidence must matter. If no conceivable evidence could ever disprove a claim, then the evidence in its favour doesn't matter either, it's invulnerable to any kind of evidence and thus has no empirical merit at all.

Okay, getting down off the soap box now...

Coolness galore.
I have heard wikidpedia is got a lot of mistakes , but I'm sure you have a cross referance and is not just quote wiki.
So this whole satelitte deal is for real...they are actually going fast enough and the gravitational pull is enough of a variance to ajust time clocks....great stuff Dexter