I had a conversation recently with an intelligent catholic about why he believed Mary was a virgin until death. (This is a dogma in Catholicism). Especially since the bible even refers to his brothers and sisters.
He could only come up with that the council said it was so, and the council was inerrant because they copied the mannerisms of the council that the apostles formed, and those appostles were given the guidance of the holy spirit.
But he still maintains that his beliefs are based on strict evidence...
> You are confusing what is useful with what is true.
No, I'm not. 'Truth' is pointless and a waste of time. We can never ever find out "the truth". Yet philosophy pretends to try to. And gets nowhere.
> Engineering success does not, cannot, and historically has not proved the theories on which it is based.
Right, noone has claimed it does. But Engineering seems to work, so we will continue doing it given the lack of better alternatives.
> Engineering success and the truth values of physical theories are not connected.
Exactly. That's what makes physics and engineering better than philosophy.
> If he claims the Universe created itself out of nothing and can do it again any day of the week, he IS.
This is a bit borderline imho, maybe science will provide some light on this issue in the future. Either way, metaphysics certainly won't give us anything useful.
> Yes, god forbid we explore and clarify thought and language. And we have the gall to think we are doing something important!
No, computer linguists try to formally define language, and come up with logic models to express idea.
Philosophers instead seem to only want to prove that God exists by using modal logic to show that a possible necessary God must be necessary yadda yadda.
> Then obviously you are one of the best modern philosophers, and I shouldn't be arguing with you!
Quite possibly, it seems the good scientists and good atheists make better philosophers than people call themselves philosophers.
There is nothing philosophical about ethics. Just because philosophers waste so much time on it, doesn't mean it's their domain to conclude about.
Ethics is pure science. Go out and ask people if something is ethical. If they mostly say it is ethical, then it's you can conclude that most people think it's ethical.
You could produce a testable model to try to predict whether people will say something ethical. And you could find the part of the brain, dna, etc that makes ethical judgements. But this is still all science and can be tested. Philosophy has no role.
Philosophy used to be related to science - producing logic and empiricism. Then science branched one way and philosophy the other. Modern philosophy has nothing to do with science now.
> Specifically metaphysics (the study of the nature of existence)
And after producing science - a testable empirical version - metaphysics has produced nothing useful.
> If you are doing physical science you are assuming certain metaphysical and epistemic conclusions
So philisophers like to claim. But in reality science simply tries to construct models that fit what we think our senses say. If they predict what our senses will say tomorrow, then they are useful and can be used to build devices etc. Since this appears to have worked well (computers etc etc), we might as well keep on doing it. Nothing there required any of the crap that philosophy has produced.
> Combine that with the fact that another areas of philosophy, logic, underlies mathematics and you have one very fundamental discipline.
Yes, before science philosophy produced a lot of useful things, such as logic and science. But now it's useless. Now you have rubbish like 'modal logic'.
> On the other hand, I've seen what gets classified under 'metaphysics' in the bookstore so I can't blame the laymen for not understanding what philosophy is actually about.
The best philosophy is when it's not. The best modern philosophers are those who dislike philosophy and argue for science.
Meh. Scientists pretty much universally agree that the concept of "Truth" is nonsense. In my experience, anyone that starts saying 'Truth' is a crackpot.
But it is philosophy that starts making grand statements about The Truth.
I always seem to write Loop Quantum Gravity as Quantum Loop Gravity. My brain and eyes seem to refuse to accept the original word ordering:-)
As for the rest - can you give me some actual evidence please? I don't personally know any scientists that would claim that string theory is the definitely the right theory, or claim that it's the only path, or want a LQG theorist to stop working on it.
> However, there is no serious effort spent by biologists working out the implications of this theory, because it is currently so untestable that it's a waste of time.
There are lots of papers on this actually, and there is even a rocket that will be launched next year carrying a mix of plants and bacteria to see whether they can survive outerspace. For example, we've already tested that waterbears (creatures about 1mm in size) can survive 10 days in a vacuum, and the new experiment will test for a much longer time.
We also have experiments to look for life on mars. If we find life on mars and it looks the same as life here, that could be taken as evidence that one of us seeded the other one.
> In theoretical physics, however, an idea that's been around three decades and still not produced any testables is still taking up a whole bunch of time, attention, and journal space.
And has produced new branches of mathematics and mathematical proofs. It's not as if the time is just wasted even if ST is wrong. We should understand the higher-dimensional math even if ST is not correct.
> so why are you physicists spending so much effort on the grand unified theories in the meantime?
Because with time, perhaps we/can/ find a way to test it? We're never going to find a way to test it if we don't even try.
> I would propose not to fund any further research into quantum gravity for the foreseeable future.
Well that's certainly one suggestion. Seems pretty short sighted to me though to just stop funding any areas you don't expect immediate benefits from.
> It will either find the Higgs, which would be an important confirmation of the standard model, or it won't -- in which case all hell will break loose, and it will be very exciting
It would be important if we do find the Higgs, but it would hardly cause all hell to break up. Everyone expects to find the higgs, and it wouldn't give us any new insights.
One of the reasons that String Theory is so popular is _because_ gravity comes up straight away, without assuming it. That is why it is so popular.
> A theory that offers no new powers of explanation and prediction is itself no better than the pre-existing paradigms. Until String Theory can show itself to have some value (leaving aside the issue of whether it's the best such model), there's no reason to cling to it.
"Cling to it" meaning what? If another idea came along and did better than String Theory, people would switch to it. People are researching it to try to find "new powers of prediction".
We'd have to get into a pretty technical debate to argue about whether the string theory trail has gone cold, and IMHO it would still come down to opinion.
As other people said here, research into string theory is not wasted - it has produced volumes of useful math.
I think it's very reasonable to discuss the proportion of funds into ST and QLG etc, but that's a far cry from the current emotional language and conversation that goes on currently.
As a physicist, I do get a bit annoyed at the constant attacks on string theory in public media.
Let me just state a few points please:
* We have Quantum Mechanics for the realm of the very small
* We have General Relativity for the realm of the very heavy
* Both of these theories fit observational data and work very well
* The two theories contradict each other in the case of very heavy and very small object (e.g. tiny black holes)
So, we need a new theory that gives the same predictions at QM and GR in the realms that we can measure them. This is where string theory etc comes in. But we do not yet have experimental data for very heavy and very small objects. If you want to complain about string theory not being testable, then accept that your same complaint is going to apply to EVERY grand-unified-theory that we know of.
Conclusion =========
If you complain at string theory, then PLEASE state what you are proposing. What is the use in complaining when you have no alternative? The main scientific proponents against String Theory also just happen to have their own pet theories (e.g Quantum Loop Gravity) which are in an even worse situation.
If you complain about string theory taking so long, then what do you expect? It has taken 16 years just to do a single experiment (The LHC).
The only way we can make String Theory etc testable is by further research. If you dislike, please propose a better solution rather than just complaining.
TL;DR - People complain at string without proposing anything better.
The trouble is that common sense seems to go out of the window.
You spend more than twice as much on military than any other country (per GDP). 633 billion USD, compared to 69 billion USD for the UK. But you only have 5 times the population.
But if you propose halving your military budget and using that money on health care, suddenly it's all about stealing money! There seems to be no common sense in it.
> Seems to me the US military has done more to extend the lives of US citizens than public-funded medicine ever has or will.
What on earth do you base this on? Medicine has been hugely beneficial. Plagues have wiped out half the population of a country in a single go. The Black Plague alone killed 100 million people.
Even WW2 had only around 50 million deaths for all countries combined, and that was the highest death toll ever seen for a war.
Slashdot Mirror
I had a conversation recently with an intelligent catholic about why he believed Mary was a virgin until death. (This is a dogma in Catholicism). Especially since the bible even refers to his brothers and sisters.
He could only come up with that the council said it was so, and the council was inerrant because they copied the mannerisms of the council that the apostles formed, and those appostles were given the guidance of the holy spirit.
But he still maintains that his beliefs are based on strict evidence...
> But physics can't prove metaphysics.
Which is why metaphysics is useless.
> You are confusing what is useful with what is true.
No, I'm not. 'Truth' is pointless and a waste of time. We can never ever find out "the truth". Yet philosophy pretends to try to. And gets nowhere.
> Engineering success does not, cannot, and historically has not proved the theories on which it is based.
Right, noone has claimed it does. But Engineering seems to work, so we will continue doing it given the lack of better alternatives.
> Engineering success and the truth values of physical theories are not connected.
Exactly. That's what makes physics and engineering better than philosophy.
> If he claims the Universe created itself out of nothing and can do it again any day of the week, he IS.
This is a bit borderline imho, maybe science will provide some light on this issue in the future. Either way, metaphysics certainly won't give us anything useful.
> Yes, god forbid we explore and clarify thought and language. And we have the gall to think we are doing something important!
No, computer linguists try to formally define language, and come up with logic models to express idea.
Philosophers instead seem to only want to prove that God exists by using modal logic to show that a possible necessary God must be necessary yadda yadda.
> Then obviously you are one of the best modern philosophers, and I shouldn't be arguing with you!
Quite possibly, it seems the good scientists and good atheists make better philosophers than people call themselves philosophers.
As Feynman said, "Shut-up and calculate" :-)
There is nothing philosophical about ethics. Just because philosophers waste so much time on it, doesn't mean it's their domain to conclude about.
Ethics is pure science. Go out and ask people if something is ethical. If they mostly say it is ethical, then it's you can conclude that most people think it's ethical.
You could produce a testable model to try to predict whether people will say something ethical. And you could find the part of the brain, dna, etc that makes ethical judgements. But this is still all science and can be tested. Philosophy has no role.
Philosophy used to be related to science - producing logic and empiricism. Then science branched one way and philosophy the other. Modern philosophy has nothing to do with science now.
> Specifically metaphysics (the study of the nature of existence)
And after producing science - a testable empirical version - metaphysics has produced nothing useful.
> If you are doing physical science you are assuming certain metaphysical and epistemic conclusions
So philisophers like to claim. But in reality science simply tries to construct models that fit what we think our senses say. If they predict what our senses will say tomorrow, then they are useful and can be used to build devices etc. Since this appears to have worked well (computers etc etc), we might as well keep on doing it.
Nothing there required any of the crap that philosophy has produced.
> Combine that with the fact that another areas of philosophy, logic, underlies mathematics and you have one very fundamental discipline.
Yes, before science philosophy produced a lot of useful things, such as logic and science. But now it's useless. Now you have rubbish like 'modal logic'.
> On the other hand, I've seen what gets classified under 'metaphysics' in the bookstore so I can't blame the laymen for not understanding what philosophy is actually about.
The best philosophy is when it's not. The best modern philosophers are those who dislike philosophy and argue for science.
Meh. Scientists pretty much universally agree that the concept of "Truth" is nonsense. In my experience, anyone that starts saying 'Truth' is a crackpot.
But it is philosophy that starts making grand statements about The Truth.
> A responsible local business using carefully sourced food is far better for a community and for the worker.
Often small local businesses get their family members to work - especially the children. How is that better?
Why don't you suggest that people should think about the moral implications of paying fast food workers to get them their food?
Why doesn't anyone just say "I don't care about the welfare of the fast food work as long as I get my food"?
I don't see why you keep singling out prostitution when your arguments apply to most jobs.
Yeah, it would have struck the same nerve for me.
> What I said was that if they don't find the Higgs all hell will break loose
Ah right, sorry :-) Yeah
I always seem to write Loop Quantum Gravity as Quantum Loop Gravity. My brain and eyes seem to refuse to accept the original word ordering :-)
As for the rest - can you give me some actual evidence please? I don't personally know any scientists that would claim that string theory is the definitely the right theory, or claim that it's the only path, or want a LQG theorist to stop working on it.
> However, there is no serious effort spent by biologists working out the implications of this theory, because it is currently so untestable that it's a waste of time.
There are lots of papers on this actually, and there is even a rocket that will be launched next year carrying a mix of plants and bacteria to see whether they can survive outerspace. For example, we've already tested that waterbears (creatures about 1mm in size) can survive 10 days in a vacuum, and the new experiment will test for a much longer time.
We also have experiments to look for life on mars. If we find life on mars and it looks the same as life here, that could be taken as evidence that one of us seeded the other one.
> In theoretical physics, however, an idea that's been around three decades and still not produced any testables is still taking up a whole bunch of time, attention, and journal space.
And has produced new branches of mathematics and mathematical proofs. It's not as if the time is just wasted even if ST is wrong. We should understand the higher-dimensional math even if ST is not correct.
> so why are you physicists spending so much effort on the grand unified theories in the meantime?
Because with time, perhaps we /can/ find a way to test it? We're never going to find a way to test it if we don't even try.
> I would propose not to fund any further research into quantum gravity for the foreseeable future.
Well that's certainly one suggestion. Seems pretty short sighted to me though to just stop funding any areas you don't expect immediate benefits from.
> It will either find the Higgs, which would be an important confirmation of the standard model, or it won't -- in which case all hell will break loose, and it will be very exciting
It would be important if we do find the Higgs, but it would hardly cause all hell to break up. Everyone expects to find the higgs, and it wouldn't give us any new insights.
Ah, the usual "But my pet theory is better! Why does nobody listen to me!"
Yeah, I hate my wording. I meant:
"Please state what you propose scientists should do instead"
rather than:
"Please state what theory should be taken as True instead"
Yes, my wording is off.
I meant "Please state what you are proposing scientists to do instead of researching these currently untestable theories"
I fear that my wording was too ambiguous.
I was not stating that we should accept String Theory as a Theory, or as the truth or anything.
I was asking - please propose what scientists should do instead?
I.e. if you criticize string theory, then what do you want the scientists to do instead? Just give up and go home and do no more research?
I know you are joking, but I did mean:
"Please state what you are proposing that scientists should do instead of researching such theories"
rather than
"If you can't give an alternative theory then string theory must be true"
One of the reasons that String Theory is so popular is _because_ gravity comes up straight away, without assuming it. That is why it is so popular.
> A theory that offers no new powers of explanation and prediction is itself no better than the pre-existing paradigms. Until String Theory can show itself to have some value (leaving aside the issue of whether it's the best such model), there's no reason to cling to it.
"Cling to it" meaning what? If another idea came along and did better than String Theory, people would switch to it.
People are researching it to try to find "new powers of prediction".
Yes, the naming sucks. String Theory is not a theory, Newton's laws of motion are not laws, etc.
We'd have to get into a pretty technical debate to argue about whether the string theory trail has gone cold, and IMHO it would still come down to opinion.
As other people said here, research into string theory is not wasted - it has produced volumes of useful math.
I think it's very reasonable to discuss the proportion of funds into ST and QLG etc, but that's a far cry from the current emotional language and conversation that goes on currently.
As a physicist, I do get a bit annoyed at the constant attacks on string theory in public media.
Let me just state a few points please:
* We have Quantum Mechanics for the realm of the very small
* We have General Relativity for the realm of the very heavy
* Both of these theories fit observational data and work very well
* The two theories contradict each other in the case of very heavy and very small object (e.g. tiny black holes)
So, we need a new theory that gives the same predictions at QM and GR in the realms that we can measure them. This is where string theory etc comes in. But we do not yet have experimental data for very heavy and very small objects. If you want to complain about string theory not being testable, then accept that your same complaint is going to apply to EVERY grand-unified-theory that we know of.
Conclusion
=========
If you complain at string theory, then PLEASE state what you are proposing. What is the use in complaining when you have no alternative? The main scientific proponents against String Theory also just happen to have their own pet theories (e.g Quantum Loop Gravity) which are in an even worse situation.
If you complain about string theory taking so long, then what do you expect? It has taken 16 years just to do a single experiment (The LHC).
The only way we can make String Theory etc testable is by further research. If you dislike, please propose a better solution rather than just complaining.
TL;DR - People complain at string without proposing anything better.
The trouble is that common sense seems to go out of the window.
You spend more than twice as much on military than any other country (per GDP). 633 billion USD, compared to 69 billion USD for the UK. But you only have 5 times the population.
But if you propose halving your military budget and using that money on health care, suddenly it's all about stealing money! There seems to be no common sense in it.
> Seems to me the US military has done more to extend the lives of US citizens than public-funded medicine ever has or will.
What on earth do you base this on? Medicine has been hugely beneficial. Plagues have wiped out half the population of a country in a single go. The Black Plague alone killed 100 million people.
Even WW2 had only around 50 million deaths for all countries combined, and that was the highest death toll ever seen for a war.