Prev: Length Contraction, The Unwritten Part
Next: Mutual time slowdown means both clocks go slow
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 7 Aug 2010 13:14
On Aug 7, 12:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> What is the time scale that you think is appropriate
> for a theoretical speculation to be nailed down by science?
----------------------------------------

Ideally the definitive predictions should be coincident with the
publication of the theory, or at worst coming 1-5 years after careful
study of a particularly complex and subtle theory.

We should quickly be presented with definitive tests for how the
theory can be rigorously evaluated. Ideally 'up-or-down' tests.

The actual evaluation of the tests could take 0-50(+) years depending
on the difficulty of the required observations.

When a theory cannot make predictions (string theory), or the
predictions are completely "plastic" due to 26 adjustable parameters
and a host of other plasticities (QCD), then you know you are dealing
with postmodern pseudoscience.

If we continue with the trends of the past 30 years, then we will end
up with a "New Age physics" that is completely untestable and probably
completely Ptolemaic. String theory is the poster child for this
vision of the future of physics.

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

From: PD on 7 Aug 2010 15:39
On Aug 7, 12:14 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu>
wrote:
> On Aug 7, 12:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What is the time scale that you think is appropriate
> > for a theoretical speculation to be nailed down by science?
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Ideally the definitive predictions should be coincident with the
> publication of the theory, or at worst coming 1-5 years after careful
> study of a particularly complex and subtle theory.

What on earth drives you to that metric? This hasn't been true for a
whole slew of scientific theories throughout history.
Newtonian gravity didn't even do that. Certainly Darwinian evolution
didn't do that. Certainly plate tectonics didn't do that.

Your *impatience* with the scientific process is not necessarily
shared by the scientific community.

>
> We should quickly be presented with definitive tests for how the
> theory can be rigorously evaluated. Ideally 'up-or-down' tests.
>
> The actual evaluation of the tests could take 0-50(+) years depending
> on the difficulty of the required observations.
>
> When a theory cannot make predictions (string theory), or the
> predictions are completely "plastic" due to 26 adjustable parameters
> and a host of other plasticities (QCD), then you know you are dealing
> with postmodern pseudoscience.

However, those are not FREE parameters. They are empirically
constrained parameters.

>
> If we continue with the trends of the past 30 years, then we will end
> up with a "New Age physics" that is completely untestable and probably
> completely Ptolemaic. String theory is the poster child for this
> vision of the future of physics.
>
> RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 7 Aug 2010 22:12
On Aug 7, 3:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>
> What on earth drives you to that metric? This hasn't been true for a
> whole slew of scientific theories throughout history.
-----------------------------------------

Have a nice life
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Length Contraction, The Unwritten Part
Next: Mutual time slowdown means both clocks go slow