Is String Theory Scientific?

[In My Memory]

BenSon made made a comment in another thread:

String theory, M-theory, ect are IMO not scientific theories because they cannot be tested in the lab. This may well change in 2007 but for now I guess they are just philosophy and yes, in the same bin as religion. However I do pay more attention and believeablity to them because they at least say there is a possibilities to test them in the future. I guess all I'm saying is that for a philosophy to become theory you have to be able to test it. So these theories are IMO incorrectly labled as theories.

 

I personally know nothing about String Theory or M-theory, except they are purely descriptive and mathematical theories. I'm not sure what to call these theories, are they scientific? are they philosophy?

 

Any comments greatly appreciated

[PhDP]

If it is unconfirmed it should be called a scientific hypothesis, no ? As long as a hypothesis haven't showed any predictive power, it shouldn't be called an theory, there's already enough confusion around scientific terms.

[Tom Mattson]

This really has nothing to do with quantum mechanics per se. It is really an issue in the philosophy of science. Near the turn of the last century the main question in that subject was, "How do we distinguish metaphysics from physics?" Karl Popper's brilliant answer to that question was to abandon the philosophy of the day: confirmationism. Confirmationism says that any experimental evidence that agrees with a theory should be taken as evidence that the theory is scientific. The trouble is that this school of thought is riddled with logical problems, and not without good reason (I'll refer you now to Hempel's Paradox of the Ravens; Google it and I'll fill you in on more details later). Popper turned all that on its head by reasoning that what makes a theory "scientific" is not that it can be confirmed, but rather that it can be falsified. That is, a theory is "scientific" if it makes claims that, if they don't go "the right way", will prove the theory false. This is quite independent of whether or not it is technologically possible for the theory to be tested. It has to do with the logical structure of the theory itself.

 

Since string theory makes claims that are contingent on experimentation (whenever that experimental technology may become available), and by obtaining falsifying results the theory may in principle be proven wrong, I say that according to our best understanding of "what science is", yes, string theory is scientific.

 

And that's my $0.02.

[BenSon]

Originally posted by Tom Mattson, This is quite independent of whether or not it is technologically possible for the theory to be tested. It has to do with the logical structure of the theory itself.

 

Since string theory makes claims that are contingent on experimentation (whenever that experimental technology may become available), and by obtaining falsifying results the theory may in principle be proven wrong, I say that according to our best understanding of "what science is", yes, string theory is scientific.

While the predictions made by said theories may tie into the logical structure of that defintion of a theory. That is just the first step. The predictions made by a theory have not only to be theoreticaly possible to test but physically possible. Your saying that the claims made by string theory can be proven wrong by experimentation. I ask you, what experiment can prove wrong all the claims of string-theory? Once the "philosophy" can be tested (In real life) to be proved right or wrong whichever school of thought you choose, it becomes theory.

 

~Scott

[Tom Mattson]

While the predictions made by said theories may tie into the logical structure of that defintion of a theory. That is just the first step. The predictions made by a theory have not only to be theoreticaly possible to test but physically possible.

 

No' date=' you aren't getting it. In order for a theory to be considered scientific, it is [b']not[/b] necessary that the predictions be "physically possible". Indeed, how do you even know what is "physically possible" apart from experimentation?

 

No, what is necessary is that the claims made by the theory be such that if the experiment goes against the prediction, then the theory is proven wrong.

 

More succinctly: In order for a theory to be considered scientific, it must make risky claims by which it can be proven wrong, if the theory is in fact wrong.

 

Your saying that the claims made by string theory can be proven wrong by experimentation. I ask you, what experiment can prove wrong all the claims of string-theory?

 

Proving all of the claims wrong is not necessary. It is only necessary to prove one of the claims wrong. And as for "what experiment?", I don't know. It is not technologically feasible yet. But that has not one whit to do with whether the theory is scientific or not. A theory need not be true to be scientific. It only needs to make predictions that are experimentally contingent.

 

Once the "philosophy" can be tested (In real life) to be proved right or wrong whichever school of thought you choose, it becomes theory.

 

Sorry, but I cannot make sense of this.

[Tom Mattson]

Ben Son, I would also like to remark on your comments quoted in the opening post.

 

String theory, M-theory, ect are IMO not scientific theories because they cannot be tested in the lab. This may well change in 2007 but for now I guess they are just philosophy and yes, in the same bin as religion.

 

You are of course free to make up your own definition of "scientific", but there is good reason to reject the definition you imply here. As I said in my first post, a theory is considered "scientific" if it meets the condition of falsifiability. That means that it does not matter if the technology is currently available to test it, and it does not matter if the theory is actually true. All that matters is that the theory makes claims that subject it to being proven wrong. Since string theory does that, I do not see how it can be classified as unscientific.

 

And as for bracketing string theory with philosophy and religion, that is not right. Philosophy for the most part is conducted a priori, as opposed to science which is conudted a posteriori. And religion is unfalsifiable, even in principle.

 

I guess all I'm saying is that for a philosophy to become theory you have to be able to test it. So these theories are IMO incorrectly labled as theories.

 

In order for this to make any sense at all, I suppose you would have to define what you mean by "philosophy" and '"theory". There are philosophical theories and there are scientific theories. The expression "for a philosophy to become theory" has no more meaning that the expression "for physics to become a theory".

[BenSon]

No, you aren't getting it. In order for a theory to be considered scientific, it is not necessary that the predictions be "physically possible". Indeed, how do you even know what is "physically possible" apart from experimentation?

 

No, what is necessary is that the claims made by the theory be such that if the experiment goes against the prediction, then the theory is proven wrong.

 

More succinctly: In order for a theory to be considered scientific, it must make risky claims by which it can be proven wrong, if the theory is in fact wrong.

Look here is where our opinions differ, You say, "No, what is necessary is that the claims made by the theory be such that if the experiment goes against the prediction, then the theory is proven wrong." I say, there is no such experiment so the theory can't be proven wrong so by your definition it is not a theory.

Proving all of the claims wrong is not necessary. It is only necessary to prove one of the claims wrong. And as for "what experiment?", I don't know. It is not technologically feasible yet. But that has not one whit to do with whether the theory is scientific or not. A theory need not be true to be scientific. It only needs to make predictions that are experimentally contingent.

Where I highlighted is the difference between us, for me that is a prerequist.

As I said in my first post, a theory is considered "scientific" if it meets the condition of falsifiability

And as I've said i disagree with this.

And as for bracketing string theory with philosophy and religion, that is not right. Philosophy for the most part is conducted a priori, as opposed to science which is conudted a posteriori. And religion is unfalsifiable, even in principle.

That was a generalization in answer to a different question not adressed in this thread. The "bin" I put them in is based on my opinion of said theories religion ect. I dislike you saying my personal opinion is "not right" thats all I have to judge topics that have no evidence as you said are "unfalsifiable" this includes string theory (At least for the time being, as I've already said).

In order for this to make any sense at all, I suppose you would have to define what you mean by "philosophy" and '"theory". There are philosophical theories and there are scientific theories. The expression "for a philosophy to become theory" has no more meaning that the expression "for physics to become a theory".

Today 05:19 PM

I think it is apparent how I define philosophy and theory due to my previous comments you can work that one out for yourself.

 

~Scott

[Tom Mattson]

Look here is where our opinions differ' date=' You say, "No, what is necessary is that the claims made by the theory be such that if the experiment goes against the prediction, then the theory is proven wrong." I say, there is no such experiment so the theory can't be proven wrong so by your definition it is not a theory.

[/quote']

 

I don't think it's true that there are no experiments that can test string theory. For one thing string theory predicts the spectrum of particles. If particles were found that do not conform to that prediction, that would be a clear case of falsification by experimentation.

 

As for the predictions made by string theory that require higher energy machines than we currently have, that is a matter of engineering, not science. It does not imply that string theory is not testable in principle. I don't see the sense in classifying a theory as "scientific" or "unscientific" according to the state of the art of engineering. If we do that, then what is "unscientific" today will become "scientific" tomorrow, and this change takes place without any change in what string theorists actually do.

 

Where I highlighted is the difference between us, for me that is a prerequist.

 

I don't see the sense in classifying a theory as "scientific" or "unscientific" according to the state of the art of engineering. If we do that, then what is "unscientific" today will become "scientific" tomorrow, and this change takes place without any change in what string theorists actually do.

 

Perhaps you could explain more?

 

That was a generalization in answer to a different question not adressed in this thread. The "bin" I put them in is based on my opinion of said theories religion ect. I dislike you saying my personal opinion is "not right" thats all I have to judge topics that have no evidence as you said are "unfalsifiable" this includes string theory (At least for the time being, as I've already said).

 

Well I'm sorry you don't like it, but your personal opinion is in fact mistaken. There are a number of predictions of string theory that are testable in principle. Besides, I'm sure all the hard working scientists who do string theory wouldn't care too much for you contradicting their personal opinion that their life's work is scientific.

 

I think it is apparent how I define philosophy and theory due to my previous comments you can work that one out for yourself.

 

Thanks, but no thanks. If you are going to use proprietary definitions of words that have well-known standard meanings, in an academic forum no less, then you will have to live with being perpetually misunderstood. It's up to you to use the terminology properly, rather than me figuring out what you mean by it.

[Tom Mattson]

In order for a theory to be considered scientific' date=' it is [b']not[/b] necessary that the predictions be "physically possible". Indeed, how do you even know what is "physically possible" apart from experimentation?

 

I can see that I was unclear last night. What I mean by this the predicted experimental outcome of a theory need not be "physically possible" for the theory to be considered scientific. Insisting that it does need to be possible is tantamount to demanding that a theory be true to be considered scientific.

 

But I would agree that it must be possible to test the theory, at least in principle. I would not agree that the theory must be testable with current technology, as I explained in my last post.

[BenSon]

I don't think it's true that there are no experiments that can test string theory. For one thing string theory predicts the spectrum of particles. If particles were found that do not conform to that prediction, that would be a clear case of falsification by experimentation.

Has anyone done this yet?

As for the predictions made by string theory that require higher energy machines than we currently have, that is a matter of engineering, not science. It does not imply that string theory is not testable in principle. I don't see the sense in classifying a theory as "scientific" or "unscientific" according to the state of the art of engineering. If we do that, then what is "unscientific" today will become "scientific" tomorrow, and this change takes place without any change in what string theorists actually do.

See where i've highlighted, to me this is not a problem, but for you it is. Ideas of what is scientific have been changing throughout history you have even used this as an example. Don't be so clamped done on your own definition or mine for that matter they will change with time.

Well I'm sorry you don't like it, but your personal opinion is in fact mistaken. There are a number of predictions of string theory that are testable in principle. Besides, I'm sure all the hard working scientists who do string theory wouldn't care too much for you contradicting their personal opinion that their life's work is scientific.

Well, here is yet another way in which we are different, I don't hold my personal opinion on topics which are unfalsifiable by definition above other peoples, arguing opinions on such topics is a futile exercise. I'm sorry if i've offended you i see your are a 'physics expert' is string theory your game? I'm sure that string theorists would disagree with me and thats their decision to make.

But I would agree that it must be possible to test the theory, at least in principle. I would not agree that the theory must be testable with current technology, as I explained in my last post.

I will say it again I disagree.

 

~Scott

[Tom Mattson]

See where i've highlighted' date=' to me this is not a problem, but for you it is. [/quote']

 

OK, fair enough.

[In My Memory]

BenSon,

 

Look here is where our opinions differ, You say, "No, what is necessary is that the claims made by the theory be such that if the experiment goes against the prediction, then the theory is proven wrong." I say, there is no such experiment so the theory can't be proven wrong so by your definition it is not a theory.

The theory is purely mathematical, so if the theory could be shown to be mathematically inconsistent, it would be falsified, and therefore proven wrong.

[BenSon]

The theory is purely mathematical, so if the theory could be shown to be mathematically inconsistent, it would be falsified, and therefore proven wrong.

To my knowledge string theory is mathematicly sound. That being said if the theory is not disproved mathematicly it should need to be tested in another way.

 

~Scott

[Tom Mattson]

The theory is purely mathematical' date=' so if the theory could be shown to be mathematically inconsistent, it would be falsified, and therefore proven wrong.[/quote']

 

The theory is not purely mathematical. It makes definite, testable predictions about the outcome of experiments that can be done in principle. Where BenSon and I differ is that he requires a theory to be testable in practice. I have agreed to disagree because our differences are philosophical. That is, it is not possible for either of us to prove ourselves right. But what can be said with certainty is that 1.)string theory does not belong in the same bin as philosophy or religion, due to inherent fundamental differences, and 2.) string theory is not purely mathematical. String theory does make predictions that can be explored fully when the technology becomes available.

 

The thing to take away from this thread is not the answer to the question, "Is string theory scientific?" The thing to take away from this thread is an awareness that the answer to that question depends crucially on one's own philosophy of science. I think that BenSon would agree to that much, too.

[BenSon]

The thing to take away from this thread is not the answer to the question, "Is string theory scientific?" The thing to take away from this thread is an awareness that the answer to that question depends crucially on one's own philosophy of science. I think that BenSon would agree to that much, too.

Too True

 

`Scott