I have heard some people say that superstring theory is just philosophy (metaphysics I suppose) because it can't be falsified, but I would say that it can be falsified in principle but not in practice, so it is not like metaphysics really.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Superstrings
- Thread starter GrowingSmaller
- Start date
A number of scientists think that falsifiability is not actually a requirement for something to count as science. As an objection to string theory, I wouldn't put much weight to this argument.
But yes, I think if falsifiability is an important criterion, then being falsifiable in principle only would be sufficient in most cases I think. For example, in 1920 we might have heard the claim that there is an alien colony on the far side of the moon. That claim was in principle falsifiable (go and look), but in practice impossible to falsify. But I think that would have been good enough in that case. Incidentally this is what the logical positivists claimed - that a proposition just had to be verifiable in principle, even if it could not be in practice.
Upvote
0
tucker58
Jesus is Lord
As a person with a phD in metaphysics: what science is discovering is that there are two realities that make up creation. Vibration and particle (mass). All can not be explained using just one theory. Vibration math (string theory) explains a part and mass (particle theory) the other part and they overlap in the middle.
Now in advanced metaphysics you reach a point where you are an observer looking through "two lenses". One is what some call the female side of the brain and the other is what some call the male side of the brain. The female side sees things as energy or vibration, the male side of the brain sees things as mass.
Because most people use only one side of their brain they are looking at things only through one lens. But because true reality is actually stereo one needs to look through both lenses at the same time to perceive true reality.
Particle theory is looking through the male lens, so to speak, and string theory is looking through the female lens, so to speak. And once science begins to understand that things are stereo we are going to be off this planet and the universe is going to be ours to play in
! Yea us! love,
tuck
Last edited:
Upvote
0
More important than what to call it, is, if it can't make a prediction that is even possibly in the future falsifiable then it is not expanding our knowledge base.
Upvote
0
Can you falsify the proposition "I exist"? If not, does that mean you don't know whether you exist?
Upvote
0
And what would this have to do with anything?
The description "I exist" doesnt attempt to add to human knowledge in the way string theory would have to expand our knowledge base.
But yes, "I exist" could easily be falcified by someone else.
Upvote
0
tucker58
Jesus is Lord
I'd classify it as a hypothesis I suppose. A hypothesis should be falsifiable in principle, and until it is falsified or proven in practice, it remains merely a hypothesis.
I don't think I've heard that one before.
-Lyn
"I don't think I've heard that one before.
"Penumbra, "why is your mood cold?"
The Lord works in mysterious ways
tuck
Upvote
0
You seemed to be saying that "only falsifiable statements can be regarded as components of knowledge".
So is there a class of statements which are not falsifiable but still add to knowledge?
So could string theory, coudn't it?
Upvote
0
What we are looking for is for you to be able to falsify the statement that you exist.
All I am saying is if falsifiability is a requirement for knowledge, it seems that I can't know I exist because "I exist" is totally unfalsifiable to me by observation or experiment.Wikipedia said:
Last edited:
Upvote
0
No, there is always the rationalist side of the equation where we might expand our knowledge by reference to other stronger ideas.
On the empirical side of things to which "theorys" belong, unfalcefiable things do not add to knowledge.
A theory that dosen't make a prediciton that could possibly tell us if it is true or not isn't really a theory.
Upvote
0
You're missing the point. For it to be falsifiable, it must be possible - even if only in principle - to show it false.
When would you ever be in a position to show false the claim that "I exist"? If you don't exist, you are unable to show *anything* as false. If you do exist, then the statement "I exist" is true and cannot be shown to be false (since it's true).
Upvote
0
But not subectively (by yourself). I was wondering if falsifiability is necessary for knowledge, then if I cannot possibly falsify x personally, can I know x personally. I think you will say "yes".
Also, there is the statement "something (not nothing) exists" which seems unfalsifiable in principle but can be known.
Upvote
0
But if I cannot falsify it then it seems that falsifiability of x is not needed for knowledge that x (or at least is might seem that way).
Upvote
0
Empirical facts are objective, so is falcefiability. "I exist" is objectively falcefiable.
I was talking about whether a "theory" adds knowledge, and it can not if it is not possibly falcefiable.
Yes, "something exists" is an unfalcefiable fact, not an empirical theory.
Theory adds knowledge by explaining facts and making predictions about future facts.
String "theory" is an attempt to explain facts without making any predictions that can possibly be face, so, it is not an explanation at all.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
ty
What about the theory that if I see an angel, as some people do, I am hallucinating, as opposed the the view that I have second sight of a real phenomena? It seems to me that both these putative "explanations" are unfalsifiable, at least with current tech and understanding. Does that mean they are not really explanations at all in the scientific sense?
I thought that it made testable (and falsifiable) predictions, but just at energy levels current tech can't access.
What about the theory that if I see an angel, as some people do, I am hallucinating, as opposed the the view that I have second sight of a real phenomena? It seems to me that both these putative "explanations" are unfalsifiable, at least with current tech and understanding. Does that mean they are not really explanations at all in the scientific sense?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Then it is a theory that can not yet be tested.
If the world where angels exist looks exactly the same as a world where they do not valid theories can not be had. The latter is accepted because of rational principles such as Occam’s razor, not scientific testing to deny the existences of angels empirically.
Remember that scientific theory’s must be objective so to advance your theory you would have to be able to make objective predictions that are independently verifiable outside your subjective experiences and explain your experiences in a way that helps us understand other phenomina.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
