Cosmology Intelligent Design

Why should science need evidence anyway? Why isn’t speculation good enough?

Spread the love

In a review of science writer Graham Farmelo’s of The Universe Speaks in Numbers: How Modern Math Reveals Nature’s Deepest Secrets, we hear that much cosmology is “speculative” rather than merely “conventional” science. We’d thought so but it is nice to hear it confirmed:

In the past, experiments played a vital role in developing theory and vice versa. For some time now that back-and-forth has not existed in certain fields where experiments are barely managing to test theories developed over decades. Wherever experimental data can be coaxed out of nature, it suffices to corroborate or refute a theory and serves as the sole arbiter of validity. But where evidence is spare or absent – as it is for a growing number of questions in physics – other criteria, including aesthetic ones, have been allowed to come into play both in formulating a theory and evaluating it.

Most of this is not conventional science, Farmelo admits. Rather, it is speculative science. But it is science nonetheless because it’s rooted in the two great theories of the 20th century: quantum mechanics and relativity.

Manjit Kumar, “The Universe Speaks in Numbers review – should we believe in a ‘theory of everything’?” at The Guardian

Reviewer Kumar’s thought seems to be, as long as the speculation is rooted in the two great theories, it’s science. A need for evidence is an unreasonable burden.

See also: Sabine Hossenfelder: Can Gravitational Wave Interferometers Tell Us If We Live In A Hologram Universe?

and

Post-modern physics: String theory gets over the need for evidence

Follow UD News at Twitter!

One Reply to “Why should science need evidence anyway? Why isn’t speculation good enough?

  1. 1
    Axel says:

    Due to its succcess in terms of its aims, science has become very self-referential – which has both positive and negative implications. Thaumaturgy, miracle-working, is literally wonderful, but it is not science, nor should or would its practitioners claim it to be.

    Of course, they would have no need to. Indeed, under the Tridentine dispensation, the Catholic church was very self-referential, as Pope Francis has pointed out on a number of occasions. However, frustrated scientists adopting other intellectual disciplines(!?) in a sort of desperation, wish to retain the charisma that has accrued to science, don’t they ?

Leave a Reply