Question on basic Science

[Loudmouth]

I simply pointed out that string theory (and other theories as well) demonstrates that both statements/assumptions are false.

You are trying to claim that String Theory is unfalsifiable. This would mean that it isn't a scientific theory, not that science allows for unfalsifiable theories.

 

[Michael]

You are trying to claim that String Theory is unfalsifiable. This would mean that it isn't a scientific theory, not that science allows for unfalsifiable theories.

So how might we outright falsify string theory? Why is it even called a "theory" for that matter?

 

[Michael]

And then right in on your attacks on the same tired windmills just as you do in every thread no matter what the topic is.

String theory isn't even 'mainstream' cosmology theory is it? It wouldn't even matter whether I picked on SUSY theory from the perspective of particle physics or astronomy for that matter.

When you measure grass outside of the lab is that also an empirical measurement? Yes or no?

Sure, as long as you're only claiming to 'measure' photons.

Dark matter has direct effects on the path of starlight which is then measured in the lab.

Gibber-gabber. All matter has a direct effect on the pathway of starlight which can be measured. I don't need exotic matter to explain the bending of light.

If string theory is unfalsifiable then it isn't a part of science. You seem to have a difficult time understanding how definitions work.

If you can tell us how to outright falsify string theory, I'm all ears?

 

[Loudmouth]

So how might we outright falsify string theory? Why is it even called a "theory" for that matter?

Why don't you ask those who call it a theory?

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure, as long as you're only claiming to 'measure' photons.

Measuring the height of a grass stem is not an empirical measurement?

Gibber-gabber. All matter has a direct effect on the pathway of starlight which can be measured. I don't need exotic matter to explain the bending of light.

Other astronomers claim that normal matter does not explain their observations. Perhaps you should talk to them.

If you can tell us how to outright falsify string theory, I'm all ears?

If it isn't falsifiable, then it isn't a scientific theory, right?

 

[Michael]

Measuring the height of a grass stem is not an empirical measurement?

Sure it is. You can name a source of the grass stem (a field). You can grow grass in a lab. You can do just about anything you want with grass because A) it's not invisible, and B) it shows up on Earth.

Measuring the height of an "invisible Bigfoot" in the field probably *isn't* a real "empirical measurement".

Other astronomers claim that normal matter does not explain their observations. Perhaps you should talk to them.

I have talked to them. They forgot to use MHD theory to describe the rotation patterns of galaxies, and their galaxy mass estimates are therefore pretty much useless.

If it isn't falsifiable, then it isn't a scientific theory, right?

You still haven't explained how to completely falsify string theory.

 

[Michael]

Why don't you ask those who call it a theory?

They blatantly misuse the term "theory" as far as I can tell.

 

[Loudmouth]

They blatantly misuse the term "theory" as far as I can tell.

Then they are misusing the term "theory". This doesn't mean that unfalsifiable theories or the supernatural are part of science.

To put this another way, does christian theology allow followers to steal and commit adultery? No. If I point to christians who steal or commit adultery does this change what christian theology is? No. It simply means that thieves and adulterers are not following christian theology.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure it is.

Is it still an empirical measurement if I measure the height of grass while it is not inside of a lab?

You can name a source of the grass stem (a field). You can grow grass in a lab. You can do just about anything you want with grass because A) it's not invisible, and B) it shows up on Earth.

Photons show up on Earth. Can you use them to test theories on dark matter?

I have talked to them. They forgot to use MHD theory to describe the rotation patterns of galaxies, and their galaxy mass estimates are therefore pretty much useless.

Can you show me the peer reviewed papers you have written which demonstrate this?

You still haven't explained how to completely falsify string theory.

I am not familiar enough with string theory to know if it is falsifiable. From what little I understand, it is a very loose amalgam of different models that can not currently separate themselves from non-string theory models. String theory is potentially testable if we could conduct experiments with much higher energies than we are capable of producing now. The only thing that string theory currently has going for it is that specific models do reproduce the GR and SR equations from first principles. Personally, I would classify string theory as a hypothesis awaiting testing.

 

[Strathos]

Michael is almost as bad when it comes to hijacking threads as AV is...

 

[Michael]

Michael is almost as bad when it comes to hijacking threads as AV is...

Oy Vey. Fine. I'm just sick and tired of atheists (and theists) claiming that "science" restricts itself to 'falsifiable" ideas (it doesn't), or that it limits itself to empirical physics (because it doesn't).

 

[driewerf]

I seem to understand that science deals with knowledge

No, it deals with the material world. It gathers observations and data, and creates knowledge that way. But it doesn't deals with knowledge".

and that you have to observe the event occurring, then gather evidence to explain the event.

No. You can see the effects visible now of past events, in order to explain these past events. When you see a pregnant woman you know that she has had sex. You don't need to see the act (that happened in the past). When the baby is born you can test it's DNA and establish who the father was. You don't need to see the act, that happened in the past.

Science is the search for truth.

No. Science tries to be as accurate as possible. It is searching the highest accuracy.
"Truth" is (in my opinion) a very poor choice of words. First, it is too much emotionally and morally charged. As if you have only two options: truth and lies. Burt a scientist can simply be wrong (though trying his best) or inaccurate (partially correct). When Dalton proposed his atomic model, now outgdated, was he lying, wrong or as accurate as possible for tghe time being?

I've heard people say science measure uncertainty,

I have no idea what that means.

nothing can be proven in science.

Correct. But we can test theories and hypotheses.

Who in the world would do science via uncertainty? That's absurd.

Propably correct. If only I knew what you mean.

Real science involves knowing.

I would rather say it involves searching.

It's got to be testable, repeatable HERE and NOW.

Oké.

in this present state.

Whazt do you mean? Are there other "states"? What are these states? How are these different?

.otherwise it is not science.

What's your take on this?

don't think that you are a ver reliable source for stating what is science and what is not.

 

[HitchSlap]

Oy Vey. Fine. I'm just sick and tired of atheists (and theists) claiming that "science" restricts itself to 'falsifiable" ideas (it doesn't), or that it limits itself to empirical physics (because it doesn't).

Of course it does. Don't be absurd. Science starts with a question then collects data. As data comes in, hypothesies change to reflect the best explanation. Don't feign confusion.

Of course, you think this way in order to keep your faith intact. Your transparency regarding dark matter v. god is telling, which marginalizes you in my mind.

 

[driewerf]

That's their interpretation of it. It is a belief.

No. It is an interpretation (as everything in science), it is not a belief.

Science is based on observable evidence that does not require faith.

correct.

I can't test millions of years ago because I can't observe it.

Maybe you can't. But scientists can. And yes, they can do this via observation, repeatablly and in the present.
So your conditions as stated in the OP
pro memory

It's got to be testable, repeatable HERE and NOW.

At least that's how I understands it.

But, I'm afraid, you understanding is rather limited. on the plus side, this means you can still improve a lot.

So I don't know why they called it science.

This "not knowing" says more about you than about science.

They can have these theories about it but in the end it's just theories.

Ahhhh, just theories...
I think some other people have answered this better than I can ever do, and let them speak:
(just adding some emphasis)

Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.

"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words: Scientific American

Theories are not proven.

Correct.
They are tested. perpetually tested.

What I'd like is for scientists to show me here and now in front of my own eyes, that these things actually happen.

What exactly do you want to see? DNA replicating? A volcano erruption? The spin change in electron rotation? The Zeeman effect? There is quite a lot of "science", you know.
And thinking of it, how do you want to see radio active decay? Or the continental drift, or a Higgs particle, or magnetic fields? Just asking.
And when you have specified what you want, how can we show you that on an internet forum? I think, ypu will have to either satisfy yourselve with a movie on youtube or go to a local science museum.

 

[driewerf]

If geologists can't directly observe it then it can't be tested it could it?

Yes, things that can't be observed directly can be tested. Indirectly. I have already referred to a pregnancy that is the result of a not-seen sexual intercourse, so can geological features be the visisble result of not directly seen processes.

That's different from the real science. The real science is here and now. Building computer, building bridges, cars, tech, etc.. I'm talking about real science. not faith.

I wrote earlier that you're not a reliable source for establishing what science ois. You confirm this again. Building, building, building, building... Building stuff is what you do in a factory. Science is what you in a lab, an observatory, a botanical garden or in the free nature. I mean, really. If you don't know the difference..

I see. So science has no truth, just theories. You find that exciting? If it has no truth then forget it!

Truth and "just theories". I (and others) have already dealt with that.

 

[driewerf]

How am I wrong?

In nearly every way.

It takes a very long time for stars to die and explode...

Matters of hours.

has anyone actually observe this?

List of supernovae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Michael]

Of course it does. Don't be absurd. Science starts with a question then collects data. As data comes in, hypothesies change to reflect the best explanation. Don't feign confusion.

How on Earth can something like SUSY theory be the 'best" explanation, particularly with three strong strikes against it over a 12 month time frame, and a standard particle physics model that works just fine without it?

Of course, you think this way in order to keep your faith intact.

My faith in what? My faith in empirical physics over supernatural forms of metaphysics? Guilty as charged I suppose.

In terms of my "faith in God", I was quite happy with my faith in God as simply being a statement of faith on my part, and I'm absolutely fine with that position in the future as well. I have no problem embracing my 'faith' as a pure form of faith.

Your transparency regarding dark matter v. god is telling, which marginalizes you in my mind.

Actually my preference for PC/EU theory is motivated internally by my personal preference for empirical physics over metaphysical nonsense. The fact that you think such a preference for empirical physics has something to do with my "religion" is simply absurd and quite wrong. It wasn't until *after* I embraced EU/PC theory that I couldn't help but ask myself if the universe itself was "alive". Even still, I fully accept the fact that the universe might very well be electrical in nature, and it may still not be "alive".

My distaste for invisible, impotent on Earth brands of energy and matter have nothing to do with my 'religion', they stem from my preference for real empirical lab test physics over "make believe' physics. There are simply ample logical, physical ways to explain photon redshift and galaxy rotation patterns that don't involve any supernatural constructs. Even a living universe need not involve any supernatural constructs, nor anything that doesn't show up on Earth.

The fact you even 'put up with' claims about supernatural forms of matter and energy is quite telling IMO, and it marginalizes you in my mind as well. Is that judgment on my part likely to motivate you to change your position on those topics anytime soon?

 

[driewerf]

That's why subjects that can be directly observed in the here and now, such as metallurgy, acoustics, electromagnetism and the such, aren't controversial, at least for long: the scientific method can be fully utilized.

No. I'm sure that every specialist in any of these fields will be able to list whole lists of discarded hypotheses and unresolved questions. Do not assume that because

you

don't know of any disputes in thse fields, that there aren't any.

It's also why some other subjects that deal in the unobserved past (ex. paleontology) or the unobserved future (ex. AGW) remain controversial and changeable: the scientific method cannot be utilized as fully.

Wrong. The controversy in these subjects is not among scientists. The scientific community is quite unanimous on both of these subjects. The "controversy" is caused by people outside the scientific community and with non-scientific agendas.

 

[driewerf]

That's because you could directly observe it, which only takes place here and now. That is science.

How do you "directly" observe radio activity? Magnetic fields? Infra red radiation? The Zeeman effect? An Einsein Bose condensate? DNA replication?

 

[Loudmouth]

How on Earth can something like SUSY theory be the 'best" explanation, particularly with three strong strikes against it over a 12 month time frame, and a standard particle physics model that works just fine without it?