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

[LaraLara]

Some people feel that physics is heading in the wrong direction because it increasingly relies on untestable concepts to fill the holes in it's knowledge:

"The issue of testability has been lurking for a decade. String theory and multiverse theory have been criticized in popular books1, 2, 3 and articles, including some by one of us (G.E.)4. In March, theorist Paul Steinhardt wrote5 in this journal that the theory of inflationary cosmology is no longer scientific because it is so flexible that it can accommodate any observational result."

Now feelings and instincts can not be discussed with atheists - or at least not in relation with science. I wondered if the problem - should it be existing - could be quantified. I came up with the following ideas and questions:

Would it be possible to count how often physics papers reference untestable concepts versus testable concepts and compare that over time? Would it be better to count the papers that are about untestable concepts?

Has such a research already be done?

What would be a good charity or university to lift such a project?

Such a research will not proof that god exist but it might show that "the god of the gaps" will stay a bit longer than assumed.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Some people feel that physics is heading in the wrong direction because it increasingly relies on untestable concepts to fill the holes in it's knowledge:

"The issue of testability has been lurking for a decade. String theory and multiverse theory have been criticized in popular books1, 2, 3 and articles, including some by one of us (G.E.)4. In March, theorist Paul Steinhardt wrote5 in this journal that the theory of inflationary cosmology is no longer scientific because it is so flexible that it can accommodate any observational result."

Now feelings and instincts can not be discussed with atheists - or at least not in relation with science. I wondered if the problem - should it be existing - could be quantified. I came up with the following ideas and questions:

Would it be possible to count how often physics papers reference untestable concepts versus testable concepts and compare that over time? Would it be better to count the papers that are about untestable concepts?

Has such a research already be done?

What would be a good charity or university to lift such a project?

Such a research will not proof that god exist but it might show that "the god of the gaps" will stay a bit longer than assumed.

Didn't J J Thomson Senior and J J Thomson Junior each gain the Nobel Prize for physics for 'proving' opposite hypotheses?

PS: The son was actually G P Thomson.

 

[LaraLara]

Didn't J J Thomson Senior and J J Thomson Junior each gain the Nobel Prize for physics for 'proving' opposite hypotheses?

I asked if there is already knowledge about this. How is the opposite hypothesis called?

 

[faroukfarouk]

I asked if there is already knowledge about this. How is the opposite hypothesis called?

I don't know, but I'm guessing that biographies of the Thomsons explain their basic ideas.

So did you study at Bochum, NRW?

 

[LaraLara]

I don't know, but I'm guessing that biographies of the Thomsons explain their basic ideas.

So did you study at Bochum, NRW?

No, I moved to much in my life, I did a distance degree.

I found another sad bias in the history of science: it is much more easy to find thomson devices than thomson nobel laureates on the internet. I fear you need to give me more explanation or a link

 

[Nithavela]

Yes, some people certainly feel that way.

 

[faroukfarouk]

FYI:

J. J. Thomson - Wikipedia

George Paget Thomson - Wikipedia

 

[LaraLara]

FYI:

J. J. Thomson - Wikipedia

George Paget Thomson - Wikipedia

Ok I overlooked that because I thought you where refering to someone more recent. I don't see a problem with a theory ariving before the evidence is there. I see a problem if this happens INCREASINGLY and if the theory can not be tested to current knowledge (the example in the citation talked of a theory that was always right).

 

[faroukfarouk]

Ok I overlooked that because I thought you where refering to someone more recent. I don't see a problem with a theory ariving before the evidence is there. I see a problem if this happens INCREASINGLY and if the theory can not be tested to current knowledge (the example in the citation talked of a theory that was always right).

I think you would enjoy reading Wittgenstein. Much of his work revolves around the idea that the reality underlying empirical description revolves around the language of description.

E.g., 2 + 2 = 4, because we all agree that 2 + 2 = 4.

 

[LaraLara]

I think you would enjoy reading Wittgenstein. Much of his work revolves around the idea that the reality underlying empirical description revolves around the language of description.

E.g., 2 + 2 = 4, because we all agree that 2 + 2 = 4.

Another attempt to grill my ill brain Why is my knowledge so terribly limited?

"logical positivism and logical empiricism, which together formed neopositivism, was a movement in Western philosophywhose central thesis was verificationism, a theory of knowledge which asserted that only statements verifiable through empirical observation are cognitively meaningfull"

I am not unfavourable of untestable concepts like the multiverse but if they become a strategy to avoid addmitting that you have no clue where the universe comes from it is a bit fishy.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Another attempt to grill my ill brain Why is my knowledge so terribly limited?

"Und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen" (And whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent.) (Closing lines of: Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus)

"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

(Apostle Paul, Romans 9.20-24)

 

[LaraLara]

"Und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen" (And whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent.) (Closing lines of: Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus)
)

I will think about that in relation to god. But meanwhile I still think there is something fishy going on in physics

 

[LaraLara]

I have a new article from an opponent of the multiverse theory:Physicist Slams Cosmic Theory He Helped Conceive

what angers me that this renown physicist again says that from the big bang the values of the natural laws could have taken every form while every atheist says that it is not OK to compare the propability of the actual values against the possible values (any).

Quote from the article: "how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities that could emerge from the big bang?"

 

[quatona]

I think it would be a good idea for scientists to notify us if/when they leave the path of methodological naturalism.

 

[quatona]

I have a new article from an opponent of the multiverse theory:Physicist Slams Cosmic Theory He Helped Conceive

what angers me that this renown physicist again says that from the big bang the values of the natural laws could have taken every form while every atheist says that it is not OK to compare the propability of the actual values against the possible values (any).

It angers you that people disagree with each other?

 

[LaraLara]

It angers you that people disagree with each other?

It angers me that I believed that this claim (that propabilities can not be estimated) was mainstream science. Your opinions are your opinions.

 

[quatona]

It angers me that I believed....

Uhm, ok.

 

[bhsmte]

It angers me that I believed that this claim (that propabilities can not be estimated) was mainstream science. Your opinions are your opinions.

Deep breaths will help.

 

[LaraLara]

Deep breaths will help.

In what speed? Do you want me to hyperventilate? You are right it might solve my anger problem if I go unconcious ...

 

[bhsmte]

In what speed? Do you want me to hyperventilate? You are right it might solve my anger problem if I go unconcious ...

Never mind.