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

[Michael]

And you misunderstood my point. The fact that astronomers stray from the path doesn't mean it is true of all scientists.

I realize that my statement was slightly ambiguous, and can be (was) misinterpreted, but I wasn't trying to imply that *all* scientists stray from the empirical path, just that scientists in general do so on a regular basis. Particle physicists to do it too, starting with every proponent of SUSY theory.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

.. In the case of SUSY theory... their predictions had no empirical value in terms of predicting anything useful at LHC.

If you're saying that having 'empirical value' means predicting 'something useful', what do you mean by 'something useful' in this context?

 

[Michael]

If you're saying that having 'empirical value' means predicting 'something useful', what do you mean by 'something useful' in this context?

The ability to correctly predict the outcome of controlled experiments.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The ability to correctly predict the outcome of controlled experiments.

OK, now you've explained what 'useful' means, we can substitute it into what you previously said:

"In the case of SUSY theory... their predictions had no empirical value in terms of predicting anything useful the ability to correctly predict the outcome of controlled experiments at LHC."​

Bleurgh! If we just drop everything but the last bit, we might get somewhere:

"In the case of SUSY theory... they had no ability to correctly predict the outcome of controlled experiments at LHC."​

Yay! Well, yes and no - SUSY models predict heavy particles which have yet to be found at LHC. The lack of detection at the energy regimes explored so far, "significantly constrains a large class of SUSY models." So it's too early to call time on SUSY at the LHC

​

 

[Michael]

Yay! Well, yes and no - SUSY models predict heavy particles which have yet to be found at LHC. The lack of detection at the energy regimes explored so far, "significantly constrains a large class of SUSY models." So it's too early to call time on SUSY at the LHC

So it's become a SUSY theory of the gaps eh?

This only further underscores the inability to falsify hypothetical entities in physics. They can never actually be falsified outright, just "constrained" into ever shrinking gaps.

 

[Tanj]

I realize that my statement was slightly ambiguous, and can be (was) misinterpreted, but I wasn't trying to imply that *all* scientists stray from the empirical path, just that scientists in general do so on a regular basis.

Then you should have no trouble of giving an example of biologists doing it.

 

[Michael]

Then you should have no trouble of giving an example of biologists doing it.

Hmmm.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm

 

[Tanj]

Hmmm.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm

You'll have to explain further, that paper looks like evidence for a hypothesis has been found and published in a peer reviewed journal. I see no evidence of anything unfalsifiable, or anyone straying from the empirical path.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hmmm.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm

I'm sure I've mentioned this previously, but if you read Bandyopadhyay's paper (supposedly behind this 'update'), you'll find it doesn't support the claims made. This publicity seeking press release puff is an example of Hameroff & Penrose's move deeper into the 'dark side' of Chopra-esque pseudoscience and quantum woo (yes, they really are allied with the commercial exploits of Chopra and his ilk).

That's just my opinion, based on a good deal of reading. DYOR.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So it's become a SUSY theory of the gaps eh?

You still don't seem to grasp how empirical science works - although it may be selective blindness.

 

[Michael]

You'll have to explain further, that paper looks like evidence for a hypothesis has been found and published in a peer reviewed journal. I see no evidence of anything unfalsifiable, or anyone straying from the empirical path.

It's certainly on the cusp of the empirical/metaphysical edge, particularly as Hammeroff describes a "soul" based on Orch-OR.

http://www.newdualism.org/papers/S.Hameroff/QSoulchap.pdf

 

[Michael]

I'm sure I've mentioned this previously, but if you read Bandyopadhyay's paper (supposedly behind this 'update'), you'll find it doesn't support the claims made. This publicity seeking press release puff is an example of Hameroff & Penrose's move deeper into the 'dark side' of Chopra-esque pseudoscience and quantum woo (yes, they really are allied with the commercial exploits of Chopra and his ilk).

That's just my opinion, based on a good deal of reading. DYOR.

I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment, I was simply citing ORCH_OR as an example of where biology might occasionally dabble in the metaphysical.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment, I was simply citing ORCH_OR as an example of where biology might occasionally dabble in the metaphysical.

There are always people who will misguidedly or fraudulently try to give their ideas a veneer of science. All that says is that they want those ideas to look respectable and/or credible.