String theory is not science

[z0rn dawg]

If we had enough evidence to say anything with such certainty, it would no longer be called a theory, it would be a law.

Many times "theory" and "law" mean the same thing in science. This is coming straight from a man who has a PhD. in a natural science (I believe bio). So, uncertainty has nothing to do with calling something a theory or law.

String theory, unfortunately, hasn't been 100% proven. I think it was Hawking who described what a good scientific theory is, but one of the major components is the ability to make a prediction and that prediction coming true. String theory predicts that under certain conditions (in a particle accelerator) a graviton should exist. To my knowledge, they haven't found one yet. So, I guess believing that string theory is true despite 100% scientific proof could make it a religion. Or at least some sort of philosophy, which is what religion kind of is anyway.

There's a difference between ID and ST. I don't know how to describe that difference, but it's there. Math backs up ST, whereas no math I've seen backs up ID. There are definitely other reasons that I'm not smart enough to think about right now, but this one stands out.

 

[tauon]

the correct way to view this is that string theory is a scientific hypothesis.
comparing string theory with religion is rather ludicrous.

what separates a scientific theory from a hypothesis is that a theory is backed up by experimental evidence.
string theory has yet to make any concrete new predictions compared to the current scientific theories (the standard model and general relativity), and the correlative predictions that it does seem to make are for now experimentally unverifiable due to technological limitations.

furthermore, the mathematics of string theory seem to have certain practical applications with condensed matter physics: it seems to be an adequate mathematical model for explaining [high-temperature] superconductivity.

 

[JoeDawg]

While some fans of string theory may be commited to it, beyond what is strictly justified... which is where I think the religion accusations come from, Intelligent design is little more than an intutition supported by highly superficial evidence.

 

[SixNein]

String theory is a mathematical model... a theory based on mathematics.
Relativity is a mathematical model... a theory based on mathematics supported by empirical evidence.
Intelligent design is less a theory, than an unsupported hypothesis. Its basically an argument from ignorance... which many would call a logical fallacy.

Theories usually offer an explanation within a larger framework, either empirical or logical.
Without getting too bogged down in semantics and inappropriate word usage. I would say that Einsteins theory of gravity, which involves an coherent explanation (curvature of spacetime) as well as mathematical model, supported by empirical evidence, is a good example of what a scientific theory can be. Some theories are more useful, than others obviously.

Although I accept evolution, I could create a simple mathematical argument for intelligent design.
If anyone worked to create mathematical support for intelligent design, would it really matter? If it does not matter for intelligent design, then why does it matter for string theory?

I think science and religion share some qualities because they require the belief of accuracy, and they have a deep fundamental desire to recruit nonbelievers.

 

[Kurdt]

Although I accept evolution, I could create a simple mathematical argument for intelligent design.

If anyone worked to create mathematical support for intelligent design, would it really matter? If it does not matter for intelligent design, then why does it matter for string theory?

I think science and religion share some qualities because they require the belief of accuracy, and they have a deep fundamental desire to recruit nonbelievers.

Why don't you create that simple theory and post it here for review.

 

[D H]

Although I accept evolution, I could create a simple mathematical argument for intelligent design. The foundations of my argument would be based up an ontological proof by Kurt Godel.

That isn't science. It's philosophy. Science does not prove things quite the way mathematicians and philosophers do. A scientific theory has to be logically sound and it is to conform with reality. Mathematicians and philosophers can create sets of axioms that might or might not have a thing to do with reality and see where those axioms lead. They'll follow this trail as long as the new theory continues to yield interesting results, hard but soluble problems, and no inconsistencies pop up. That this theory ("theory" in mathematics means a consistent body of knowledge) is contradicted by reality: So what?

Suppose some experimentalist comes up with a test that conclusively shows there are no curled up dimensions. The results are confirmed multiple times. Physicists will have to place string theory in the trashbin of falsified theories. Mathematicians may well continue working in this area because it has opened up some very interesting avenues of research. That it is contradicted by reality: So what?

 

[Evo]

Thread closed. It has been sufficiently explained, repeatedly, why string theory is acceptable science.