Is String Theory Real Science or Just Speculation?

[Pupil]

"String theory is not science!"

So there seems to be a lot of people bashing String Theory for not being real science (real science being theories with predictive/explanatory power). For instance:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/061891868X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=286

http://www.tellmehowto.net/howto/string_theory_is_not_science_4567

etc...

Where do we draw the line between science and useless speculation such as Intelligent Design theory, and is string theory any better than ID?

 

[Evo]

So there seems to be a lot of people bashing String Theory for not being real science (real science being theories with predictive/explanatory power). For instance:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/061891868X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=286

http://www.tellmehowto.net/howto/string_theory_is_not_science_4567

etc...

Where do we draw the line between science and useless speculation such as Intelligent Design theory, and is string theory any better than ID?

Intelligent Design is a religion, so it has nothing to do with scientific theory.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think his point is that an important way that science distinguishes itself from religion is that scientific theories produce testible, falsifiable results. String theory does not, just like ID does not. So how is string theory any better than ID.

 

[Evo]

I think his point is that an important way that science distinguishes itself from religion is that scientific theories produce testible, falsifiable results. String theory does not, just like ID does not. So how is string theory any better than ID.

Because it's not a religion? The two aren't even comparable. ID was made up by a group of religious extremists, that is a well known fact. Trying to compare the two is ludicrous. I know he isn't touting ID.

If someone wants to question the scientific merits of string theory, that's fine.

How is string theory better than ID? I guess one major way is that string theory wasn't created as a device to introduce religion into the public education system under the disguise of science.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

So there seems to be a lot of people bashing String Theory for not being real science (real science being theories with predictive/explanatory power). For instance:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/061891868X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=286

http://www.tellmehowto.net/howto/string_theory_is_not_science_4567

etc...

Where do we draw the line between science and useless speculation such as Intelligent Design theory, and is string theory any better than ID?

String Theory is pure mathematics, so it has nothing to do with scientific theory.

 

[DaveC426913]

Because it's not a religion? The two aren't even comparable. ID was made up by a group of religious extremists, that is a well known fact.

Its history is not really relevant to the question, i.e. that's a weak case for distinguishing between the two.

The question could be more easily phrased as: how is string theory not a religion?

 

[Pupil]

Because it's not a religion? The two aren't even comparable. ID was made up by a group of religious extremists, that is a well known fact.

Who makes a theory has nothing to do with the theory being valid science. It is scientific or it is not -- it does not matter who makes it. You keep asserting ID theory is religion but string theory is not. Why?

 

[DaveC426913]

Who makes a theory has nothing to do with the theory being valid science. It is scientific or it is not -- it does not matter who makes it. You keep asserting ID theory is religion but string theory is not. Why?

OK, now we're getting to the meat.

I don't think anyone is suggesting the string theory is religion. They're saying it's not valid as a theory because it does not make predictions. The entire religion argument of yours is a red herring.

While true, ID also does not make predictions, it is for a different reason.

String theory and ID both belong to the same superset: 'things that are not theories because they do not make predictions', but that does not mean string theory and ID are themselves the same set.

 

[Pupil]

OK, now we're getting to the meat.

I don't think anyone is suggesting the string theory is religion. They're saying it's not valid as a theory because it does not make predictions. The entire religion argument of yours is a red herring.

While true, ID also does not make predictions, it is for a different reason.

String theory and ID both belong to the same superset: 'things that are not theories because they do not make predictions', but that does not mean string theory and ID are themselves the same set.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=string+theory+is+religion&btnG=Google+Search

Many people call string theory religion or at the very least philosophy. You'll have to explain how this is a red herring. I don't see how it detracts at all from the main argument.

What are the different reasons for ID and String Theory not making predictions?

Well obviously you can break the same superset down into any set you want and say something is in a different set than something else, but...so? I guess I don't understand your point. I'm just eager to know if string theory is not science and if it is religion.

 

[humanino]

String theory is essentially a mathematical model constructed by physicist to address specific technical problems. Although string theory has still after decades of developments it own problems, it is wrong to simply state that it can not make any definitive unambiguous prediction.

it's not valid as a theory because it does not make predictions.

It can not make any NEW prediction (yet). The difference is not subtle. For instance, it might be some day that string theory has finalized the reformulation of the standard model of particle physics, but has not allowed for new experimentally testable predictions (not in principle, but in practice). However, string theory is definitely already useful for scientists, as it has triggered the developments of many new pieces of mathematics on its own, some of which are not pure game of thoughts, as illustrated by the recent calculations related to high temperature superconductivity, or holographic models of QCD (for instance). If the situation continues like this, it is possible that, although string theory would NOT produce genuine new predictions which we could verify (this scenario is to illustrate what is wrong with the above discussion), we would still trust string theory at very high energy where it would be self-consistent and today's standard model would not (and that is not a religious form of science, that is rational and reasonable).

 

[DaveC426913]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=string+theory+is+religion&btnG=Google+Search

Many people call string theory religion or at the very least philosophy. You'll have to explain how this is a red herring.

Simply put: religion is faith-based belief. In what way is string theory a religion at all?

I don't see how it detracts at all from the main argument.

Actually, that's an excellent point. The main (OP) argument had nothing to do with religion. That was not introduced until Evo's post.

If I may restate the OP: string theory seems to be unable to make any useful predictions. Does this not invalidate it as a scientific theory?

Many people think so, yes.
However, that does not mean it isn't worth studying, as humanino points out.
So, the question of whether it is really a theory is, arguably, largely a semantic one.

 

[Pupil]

Simply put: religion is faith-based belief. In what way is string theory a religion at all?

All belief is faith based. There is always uncertainty associated with any event (the sun rising, for example), so we use evidence to show our faith is well placed.

Actually, that's an excellent point. The main (OP) argument had nothing to do with religion. That was not introduced until Evo's post.

If I may restate the OP: string theory seems to be unable to make any useful predictions. Does this not invalidate it as a scientific theory?

I have to concede your point here -- I was wrong. My post indeed had nothing to do with religion, but it interests me now.

Many people think so, yes.
However, that does not mean it isn't worth studying, as humanino points out.
So, the question of whether it is really a theory is, arguably, largely a semantic one.

A lot of people question whether it is worth studying after not having produced a falsifiable idea in the 30 years (?) it has been around.

 

[Evo]

Simply put: religion is faith-based belief. In what way is string theory a religion at all?


Actually, that's an excellent point. The main (OP) argument had nothing to do with religion. That was not introduced until Evo's post.

Yes, to clarify that ID is religion. So, yes the OP was comparing science to religion. DUH. Or did the OP not know that? Ignorance of a fact does not change the fact.

Anyway, humanino made an excellent post. He knows what he is talking about, I would suggest that anyone reading this thread try to understand what he wrote.

 

[Pupil]

Yes, to clarify that ID is religion. So, yes the OP was comparing science to religion. DUH. Or did the OP not know that?

No, I knew exactly what I did, which was to compare two theories. You claim ID is religion, but you have not demonstrated why. As far as I can tell ID makes no predictive statements. That is characteristic of a nonscientific theory -- not religion. If you want to subscribe ID theory not only to the set of nonscientific theories but to the subset of religion, you'll need to make some argument for doing so.

 

[Evo]

No, I knew exactly what I did, which was to compare two theories. .

No, Intelligent Design is NOT a theory, (in your scenario) nor is it science, it's religion. Lack of knowledge of what you are posting about does not make your post correct.

You really need to learn to research subjects before you post about them.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

 

[Pupil]

No, Intelligent Design is NOT a theory, nor is it science, it's religion. Lack of knowledge of what you are posting about does not make your post correct.

I agree ID is not science, but I do not agree it is not a theory or that it is religion. You keep asserting the latter points are true, but you have not demonstrated it.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

I've always found the reported feynman quote quite illuminating and pithy here (although he probably never actually said it):

"Religion is a culture of faith, science is a culture of doubt".

 

[Evo]

I agree ID is not science, but I do not agree it is not a theory or that it is religion. You keep asserting the latter points are true, but you have not demonstrated it.

It was decided in a court of law! Oy vey.

And I'm not kidding when I say that you need to make an effort to understand what you are posting about.

 

[Pythagorean]

It was decided in a court of law! Oy vey. .

While I may agree with your conclusion, I think this is another weak argument (which doesn't go well with condescending smileys.)

 

[maverick_starstrider]

String theory is hardly the first scientific theory that was not immediately experimentally testable. Generally their is a flurry of scientific progress whenever a new experimental probe is invented (the microscope, the telescope, time-of-flight neutron scattering, x-rays, electron microscope, etc.) and sometimes, especially in things like physics (which is strongly rooted in math) the science jumps ahead of verifiability. I don't see why that shoud mean it is no longer "science". Einstein had to wait for Eddington, Faraday had to wait for Maxwell. However, if the case were that string theory could never be verified then that would be a different story. However, even if it wasn't EVER verifiable but it significantly simplified the mathematical structure (and got rid of the "three animals lashed together" electroweak theory) then I'd say it would be scientific to accept based on nothing but occam's razor.

 

[Pupil]

It was decided in a court of law! Oy vey.

And I'm not kidding when I say that you need to make an effort to understand what you are posting about.

No it was not. I assume you're referring to the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, correct? The contention of that case was to show that the board members approving the ID theory did so for religious purposes, not because it had validity as a scientific theory. This does not make ID theory not a theory, and it does not make it religious, ashttp://www.google.com/search?q=defi...=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a" I did a ten page research paper for my Composition class on just this subject if you wish to get more detailed information about the Kitzmiller v. Dover case (and other cases).

To reiterate an good idea: you should make an effort to understand what you're posting about before doing so.

 

[Pupil]

It was decided in a court of law! Oy vey.

And I'm not kidding when I say that you need to make an effort to understand what you are posting about.

BTW, try not to cite court cases as truth. Either your argument is valid and sound or it is not, regardless of what a judge thinks.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Well aren't we cocky.

 

[WaveJumper]

Yes, to clarify that ID is religion. So, yes the OP was comparing science to religion. DUH. Or did the OP not know that? Ignorance of a fact does not change the fact.

In the total absence of evidence what reality is, any approach to "explain" it(if it's ever possible at all) is pure unadulterated religion(and yes, that includes the belief that there are no god/s).

 

[Evo]

BTW, try not to cite court cases as truth. Either your argument is valid and sound or it is not, regardless of what a judge thinks.

Well, then I can safely say that my argument is sound.

Do you know what a theory is? For example would you understand the difference in me saying that I have a theory of why I get callouses on my feet and what is considered a theory in science? And that comparing Evo's theory of foot callouses and string theory would be wrong?

If you meant to ask why string theory is considered science, I think humanino gave a good explanation.

 

[nrqed]

Its history is not really relevant to the question, i.e. that's a weak case for distinguishing between the two.

The question could be more easily phrased as: how is string theory not a religion?

Would you call mathematics a religion??

The real debate is whether string theory is more math than physics or vice versa. But I don't think it makes sense to lump string theory with religion.

 

[humanino]

Since you do not seem to concentrate on string theory, I hope its case is closed : it is science made by scientists. Now as for

Where do we draw the line between science and useless speculation such as Intelligent Design theory ?

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
[...]
The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science

The scientific process is to have a hypothesis (say evolution), form predictions and tests them experimentally. Darwinism is science.

ID relies on the gaps left over temporarily by scientific explanations. It can not be science even in principle. You can come over with countless examples supporting ID, forever trying to protect it with yet another exception to the rule, and obviously that process never ends, but that method is opposite to the scientific process. We can only take every example one by one and wait until we have a reasonable explanation for each of them. In particular, you can not get any prediction with ID.

 

[junglebeast]

Where do we draw the line between science and useless speculation such as Intelligent Design theory, and is string theory any better than ID?

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has sufficient experimental evidence to remove all reasonable doubt in the the theories accuracy. If there are two theories that predict contradictory results for an experiment, then it is impossible for both theories to be simultaneously true. Therefore, the condition for "sufficient evidence" is increased as alternative hypothesis that explain the observations are proposed. Specifically, one must not only find sufficient evidence supporting the theory in question, but one must also provide sufficient evidence that any opposing theory is incorrect.

In the absence of any additional theories, string theory is lacking in sufficient evidence. But in the presence of other opposing theories that have more evidence than string theory, it is not even close to being able to remove reasonable doubt in it. Therefore, I conclude that string "theory" is actually a hypothesis, and is only named "theory" due to overzealous researchers wanting to make their work look more credible.

Intelligent design is completely different. Unlike string theory which at least has evidence, intelligent design has zero evidence, but flies in the face of the theory that evolution is responsible for diversity on Earth. It is a proven mathematical fact that evolution could have been responsible for the diversity on Earth, and there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that evolution was responsible for life on Earth. Intelligent design ignores this, and is therefore nothing more than an idiotic idea shared by ignorant / mentally handicapped people.

Intelligent design is similar to the following idea:

IDer: I saw a person today. Therefore, they must have been created 10 seconds before I saw that person by a mysterious creator.

But this person has medical records...tax documents...a husband and children...how can you honestly think this person was created 10 seconds ago by some unknown mysterious creator?

IDer: All that information could have been forged. His wife could be lying. His mother could be senile, and in fact you might not have even seen this person -- you could be lying.

But look...I have photographs, and we have DNA records...yes, we can verify that they existed yesterday.

IDer: I do not understand what a DNA test is, so shut up.

 

[George Jones]

Robert Geroch, a particularly careful and deep thinker about math and physics, and at one time a professor in both the departments of mathematics and physics at the university of Chicago, wrote some interesting stuff about the nature of theories.

Read the last paragraph that starts on on page 182 with "One might very well ...," and that ends on page 183 with "I wouldn't recognize the "proof of a physical theory" if I saw one."

http://books.google.com/books?id=Uk...:geroch&lr=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES#PPA182,M1

 

[WaveJumper]

and there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that evolution was responsible for life on Earth.

Intelligent design ignores this, and is therefore nothing more than an idiotic idea shared by ignorant / mentally handicapped people.

I know of one such mentally handicapped person - his name is Einstein. In "The world as I see it" he says:

"Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous"