What is the moral obligation of theorists in the scientific community?

[hossi]

BTW I LIKE that we differ slightly in a nuance or perhaps in some logical point. I like to be here where people have a lot of different views. Rather than argue any more about this one point, I will say that I totally agree with you

Well, I too think that we mostly agree. However, just one remark:

And the more fundamental and beautiful a theory is THE MORE ONE MUST INSIST on it predicting new phenomena that make it falsifiable and testable.

it is what distinguishes the real gold of new science from the fairyland daydream stuff.

Yes, but it's also a question of timescale and of alternatives. Say, a theory that is fundamental and said-to-be-beautiful should at some point predict something. I think we agree on that.

If you find the approach from a fundamental level viable then you have to take into account that not all such approaches will immediately be testable, or it will take time to figure out a way to make predictions.

But how much time do you give the researchers. 10 years? 20 years? 30?? How much do you invest in their efforts? How much do you invest in alternatives? How do you distribute your support? At which point do you say it's enough?

I am not asking that because I want you to answer. These are questions that ought to be discussed - Repeatedly - in the scientific community. To make sure we do not get lost in fairyland. The answer won't always be nice, it won't always be easy, but it would help us save a lot of brain capacity.



B.

 

[turbo]

The only statement of yours I don't like is the first sentence. If you start talking about truth, sooner or later you will have to define what you mean by that -- do we really want to start a discussion about what truth and reality is? I suspect you mean it as a synonym for describing nature?

The best I can do is point to Einstein, who used thought experiments to point out truths, and who refined his ideas to demonstrate them. If you observe that A follows from B, and reliably so, you should search for a way to explain the relationship between A and B. You can posit an explanation for the relationship, but a real theorist would not only posit a relationship, but would provide meaningful criteria by which the theory could be proven or falsified. Modern cosmology has run off the track in this regard. "Darn, if I could only have 27 dimensions, all but 3 or which are hidden, I can explain the whole Universe, as long as I don't have to predict anything and don't have to subsequently explain any competing observations" - it seems like the ultimate cop-out to me, but the parade-goers admire the emporer's new clothes regardless.

 

[hossi]

The best I can do is point to Einstein, who used thought experiments to point out truths, and who refined his ideas to demonstrate them. If you observe that A follows from B, and reliably so, you should search for a way to explain the relationship between A and B. You can posit an explanation for the relationship, but a real theorist would not only posit a relationship, but would provide meaningful criteria by which the theory could be proven or falsified. Modern cosmology has run off the track in this regard. "Darn, if I could only have 27 dimensions, all but 3 or which are hidden, I can explain the whole Universe, as long as I don't have to predict anything and don't have to subsequently explain any competing observations" - it seems like the ultimate cop-out to me, but the parade-goers admire the emporer's new clothes regardless.

Turbo, I just don't get your answer. I think we are on the same track, but despite you pointing to Einstein, talking about truth is still not helpful. I.e. it is problably true that supersymmetric string theory is anomaly free only in 10 dimensions. But you are referring to truth as something observable in nature - that was what I meant with "I suspect you mean it as a synonym for describing nature". B.

 

[turbo]

At some point, we have to deal with fundamentals. We have to make distinctions between what is arguable and what is demonstrably true. If we cannot come to agreement on what is demonstably true, there will be conflict forever. If we allow the dialogue to be dominated by those who argue between 27 dimensions and 24 dimensions, we will all lose, since neither proponent can give a single testable prediction by which their model might be falsified. "String", "M" or whatever you want to call it is a loser out of the gate, unless they are willing to engage with observational astronomy, and they are not.

 

[Chronos]

One should search for truth and try to define the parameters by which the truth might be revealed. That done, it is incumbent on the model-builder not just to stand back and wait to see if his model holds up, but to explain himself or herself to the community at large the implications of the model, and the means by which it might be falsified or supported. Science is not like a crap-shoot, in which you can cast your lot and hope you get lucky. If you understand what you are doing, you should be able to give reasons backing up your choices, and you should be able to to set some limits at which your interpretation fails. If you cannot do this, you are likely trading in belief and speculation, and are not dealing with logic and science.

There is no "truth' in science, that is a philosophical concept. In science there is only the "preponderance of observational evidence". In that context, defining "the parameters by which the truth might be revealed" means all models must be rigorous, mathematically consistent, and predictive. Thus it is incumbent upon the model-builder to predict the results of crap-shoots before the dice are rolled, not interpret them ad-hoc. My objection is to the suggestion mainstream scientists tend to leap to conclusions - hoping they get lucky when the observational evidence rolls in. Albeit, I agree that is a fair characterization of most non-mainstream scientists.