Culture Intelligent Design Philosophy Science

There was something else you wanted to know about the death of science?

Spread the love

From Columbia University mathematician Peter Woit at Not Even Wrong:

The organizing committee for the Munich conference was chaired by Richard Dawid, a string theorist turned philosopher who has written a 2013 book, String Theory and the Scientific Method. For a fuller discussion of that book, see the linked blog post. To oversimplify, it makes the case that the proper way to react to string theory unification’s failure according to the conventional understanding of the scientific method is to change our understanding of the scientific method. Much of the Munich conference was devoted to discussing that as an issue in philosophy of science.

Silverstein begins her article explaining how physics at a very high energy scale can in principle have observable effects. This of course is true, but the problem with string theory is that, in its landscape version, it has a hugely complicated and poorly understood high energy scale behavior, seemingly capable of producing a very wide range of possible observable effects, none of which have been seen. More.

Match this up with gender theory, go full riot, and we have a discipline that is finished, except as a political hoo-haw.

See also: What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

and

Multiverse cosmology at your fingertips

4 Replies to “There was something else you wanted to know about the death of science?

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    I simply don’t understand News and Woit’s deep-seated loathing of string theory. In fact, I don’t understand string theory at all and I doubt if News understands it any better than I do. So neither of us a qualified to decide whether the theory is good or bad and certainly not whether an entire discipline is finished. But so what? What if it is wrong? Isn’t it possible that understanding why a theory is inadequate might point you in the direction of something better? Either way science progresses.

  2. 2
    jimmontg says:

    I at one time thought string theory was the best solution and explanation of Quantum effects. Quantum Mechanics and lack of evidence has persuaded me different. To say that there are a multiplicity of Universes to shore up one’s materialistic view is ideology at the forefront, not science. I am tired of “Science” being touted as the be all and end all of human endeavor, it is ridiculous. It has less credibility than my assertion that Christ rose from the dead and saved all who would come to Him. There is a considerable amount of “circumstantial” evidence to back up that assertion. Just look at the Lord Jesus’ record of fulfilling OT prophecies. There is so much more to add, but not here.

    How much circumstantial evidence is there for an unknowable bunch of Universes? I ran into a friend and asked him, “Where is there any evidence not based on “Materialism” that prove there actually are multi-Universe’? He went home and came back with answers that could be interpreted many ways, but none verified and ALL speculation.

    Beware my friends of ideology disguised as “Science” when it is SWAG. Scientific Wild Assed Guess. If we cannot observe it we can make no affirmative claims about it one way or the other. The power of Christian prayer has been documented, yet buried. Something to be considered.
    http://www.conservapedia.com/Prayer
    From Wikipedia.

    Oh, do not forget Dr. Habermas’s videos on NDEs. He only uses veridical anecdotes and data. Pay attention though when he talks about “Hellish experiences” He has no “this world data” about such claims, but that doesn’t make it untrue. There are a multiplicity of hospice workers talking about both dieing experiences. There is something” beyond this life. Pascal’s Wager would be a good place to start. Look it up in his Pensees.

  3. 3
    polistra says:

    @seversky: “Isn’t it possible that understanding why a theory is inadequate might point you in the direction of something better?”

    It’s possible in theory, but it never happens. The theory that errors lead to better understanding has been decisively disproved. Errors lead to better funding for the errors.

  4. 4
    Seversky says:

    polistra@ 3

    It’s possible in theory, but it never happens. The theory that errors lead to better understanding has been decisively disproved.

    Really? It is my understanding that it was recognition of the errors in Newtonian mechanics that drove the search for a more capable replacement which culminated in relativity theory.

Leave a Reply