Is a possibel error/bias in the method of physics testable?

[TagliatelliMonster]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but scientists have almost always deviated from the path of methodical naturalism. In fact every proposed hypothetical entity in physics deviates from that standard, at least at first. They often "propose" that the hypothetical entity in question is 'natural', but often in spite of a complete lack of empirical evidence to support that 'act of faith'. How "natural' are 11 dimensions of spacetime?

If string theory turns out to be correct, then those additional dimensions are pretty natural.
But I don't think you'll find a single string theorist worth his salt who'll pretend that string theory is a valid, accurate and demonstrable model of reality.

That's the difference between a scientific idea and a religion.
The scientists knows he can be wrong, and at the frontier of knowledge - most actually assume/know they are wrong.
Whereas the theist thinks he has all the answers - even before asking the questions.

 

[Tanj]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but scientists have almost always deviated from the path of methodical naturalism.

Neither I nor any of my colleagues have ever deviated from said path,

So you are wrong.

In fact every proposed hypothetical entity in physics deviates from that standard

There's more to science than physics.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Even those proposed CMB 'mechanisms' lack empirical support in the lab.

Any fule kno that science is not restricted to what can be demonstrated in 'the lab'.

 

[Michael]

Neither I nor any of my colleagues have ever deviated from said path,

So you are wrong.

The fact a few "scientists" don't stray from the straight and narrow path of empirical physics doesn't mean that "science as a whole" doesn't do so. Are you even an astronomer?

There's more to science than physics.

Ya, but science is more than just biology or electrical engineering. When things get to the largest and smallest scales however, science (and various scientists) routinely stray from empirical physics.

 

[Michael]

Any fule kno that science is not restricted to what can be demonstrated in 'the lab'.

So why do atheists require God to be demonstrated empirically?

 

[Michael]

If string theory turns out to be correct, then those additional dimensions are pretty natural.

Ya, and if I'm right, God is pretty "natural" too, and I don't need to add anything new to physics.

But I don't think you'll find a single string theorist worth his salt who'll pretend that string theory is a valid, accurate and demonstrable model of reality.

There are plenty of examples where they do, starting with "dark matter". I've seen them use the term "proof' in fact in *published* papers no less.

That's the difference between a scientific idea and a religion.
The scientists knows he can be wrong, and at the frontier of knowledge - most actually assume/know they are wrong.
Whereas the theist thinks he has all the answers - even before asking the questions.

If that were actually true, the dark matter hypothesis, and LCDM would be long dead by now. Billions were spent, nothing was found, and their baryonic mass estimates of galaxies were shown to be worthless to boot. They still funded LUX-LZ and Xenon-1T, they refuse to budge from their percentages of magic matter, and they're still preaching LCMD to the public.

Scientists are human beings too. They hate to be wrong just like everyone else on the planet. Their livelihood, their prestigue and their financial well being are also tied up in being correct, so admitting mistakes doesn't come any easier for them.

 

[Michael]

Actually, atheists tend to complain only when the one trying to stuff a gap with an undemonstrable entity pretends to have certainty and to be holding the "truth and nothing but the truth".

I have no problems at all with scientists trying to "stuff gaps" by coming up with hypothesis and trying to make it fit the available data and trying to make sense of it.

In fact, it's their job to do that.

When was the last time anyone spent *billions* of dollars hunting for God in any gaps?

 

[Michael]

It´s ok, Michael.

That's comforting.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So why do atheists require God to be demonstrated empirically?

I suspect most of them don't, they're simply not interested. But what has that to do with science not being restricted to lab demonstrations?

 

[Michael]

I suspect most of them don't, they're simply not interested. But what has that to do with science not being restricted to lab demonstrations?

It just demonstrates the silliness of atheists insisting/requiring that all "evidence" for God has to be empirically demonstrated at the cause/effect level, or that the topic of God is somehow "unscientific".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It just demonstrates the silliness of atheists insisting/requiring that all "evidence" for God has to be empirically demonstrated at the cause/effect level, or that the topic of God is somehow "unscientific".

But they don't... or have you actually found an atheist who says that?

Wait, are you confusing 'empirical' with 'in the lab'?

 

[Michael]

But they don't... or have you actually found an atheist who says that?

Wait, are you confusing 'empirical' with 'in the lab'?

Actually the confusion comes from atheists, not me. They keep saying silly stuff like "God can't be studied scientifically", or "There is no evidence of God". By "evidence", they typically mean empirical cause/effect demonstrations of claims in controlled experiments, or evidence which cannot be explained any other possible way. Science doesn't require such standards of "evidence".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Actually the confusion comes from atheists, not me. They keep saying silly stuff like "God can't be studied scientifically", or "There is no evidence of God". By "evidence", they typically mean empirical cause/effect demonstrations of claims in controlled experiments, or evidence which cannot be explained any other possible way. Science doesn't require such standards of "evidence".

OK, still no response to my questions, just more sweeping assertions about atheists.

That speaks for itself. 'Nuff said.

 

[Tanj]

The fact a few "scientists" don't stray from the straight and narrow path of empirical physics doesn't mean that "science as a whole" doesn't do so. Are you even an astronomer?

What are you suggesting? That biologists like myself aren't scientists? Is that why you used the quotes?

 

[Michael]

What are you suggesting? That biologists like myself aren't scientists? Is that why you used the quotes?

Not at all. You completely misunderstood my point. I have a great deal of respect for any branch of empirical science, and certainly biologists. The fact that biology doesn't deviate from empirical physics doesn't mean that astronomers stay on the empirical straight and narrow, or particle physicists do not deviate from empirical physics. I have a great deal of respect for biology actually since it produces tangible products that actually improve my life such as antibiotics or surgical techniques. Compare and contrast that with SUSY theory or "dark energy" which have zero empirical value, and no consumer value whatsoever.

 

[Tanj]

Not at all. You completely misunderstood my point. I have a great deal of respect for any branch of empirical science, and certainly biologists. The fact that biology doesn't deviate from empirical physics doesn't mean that astronomers stay on the empirical straight and narrow

And you misunderstood my point. The fact that astronomers stray from the path doesn't mean it is true of all scientists. If you want to have a go at astronomers then go right ahead. Just stop saying things like

scientists have almost always deviated from the path of methodical naturalism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When was the last time anyone spent *billions* of dollars hunting for God in any gaps?

Never, because there is nothing there to hunt for.

Exactly.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I have a great deal of respect for biology actually since it produces tangible products that actually improve my life such as antibiotics or surgical techniques. Compare and contrast that with SUSY theory or "dark energy" which have zero empirical value, and no consumer value whatsoever.

I don't know what you mean by 'empirical value' (how is it measured? what units?), but you shouldn't expect the investigation of scientific hypotheses to have 'consumer value', or even potential consumer value. Consumer value arising out of the search for knowledge is often an unexpected bonus.

The canonical example is the laser - Einstein's 1917 quantum radiation paper established the theoretical basis for lasers and masers, but masers weren't built until the 1950s, and when practical lasers became available in the 1960s, they were called "a solution looking for a problem". Forty years later, they were ubiquitous in consumer goods and industrial processes.

Just sayin'.

 

[Michael]

I don't know what you mean by 'empirical value' (how is it measured? what units?),

It depends on the claim. In the case of SUSY theory, it's proponents made various predictions about 'sparticles' they expected to observe at various energy states, but their predictions had no empirical value in terms of predicting anything useful at LHC.

Astronomers can't even name a known source of dark energy, and it's more impotent in the lab than astrology claims.

but you shouldn't expect the investigation of scientific hypotheses to have 'consumer value', or even potential consumer value. Consumer value arising out of the search for knowledge is often an unexpected bonus.

It's a very common unexpected bonus, but I'd settle for even one accurate "prediction" that actually panned out in the lab.

The canonical example is the laser - Einstein's 1917 quantum radiation paper established the theoretical basis for lasers and masers, but masers weren't built until the 1950s, and when practical lasers became available in the 1960s, they were called "a solution looking for a problem". Forty years later, they were ubiquitous in consumer goods and industrial processes.

Just sayin'.

Meanwhile the 'dark matter' hypothesis has been around about 70 years and it's produced *nothing* in the lab that even remotely resembles an "accurate prediction". Just sayin'.

 

[Michael]

Never, because there is nothing there to hunt for.

Exactly.

That would be an example of an atheist's "statement of faith". How do you know the outcome before you've spent any time, effort or money investigating?

I could (and have) said the same thing about exotic matter, but I wasn't certain of the outcome before they fired up LHC.