[lit-ideas] Re: Science as Aesthetics?
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 16:11:20 +0000 (GMT)
--- On Thu, 14/5/09, Paul Stone <pastone@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>In more than 35
> years since
> it really took hold, it has yielded ZERO testable results.
> It's
> aesthetically pleasing to imagine that it's true, but
> scientifically,
> a failure. At most, it has necessitated the invention of
> new
> mathematical puzzles to solve, but that's just playing with
> an erector
> set with unlimited pieces.
The string-theory must, I'm guessing, fall into one of the following
categories:-
a. inconsistent with observable physical phenomena (in which case falsified
though scientific);
b. consistent with observable physical phenomena in ways that, were those
phenomena otherwise, the theory would be falsified (in which case it is to that
extent testable and scientific);
c. consistent with observable physical phenomena but only in that it is not
inconsistent with them (the hypothesis "God exists" might be said to be such a
theory also) but where it would also be consistent (as might God's existence)
with any instance where the phenomena were otherwise:- in which case it is not
scientific since it simply prohibits no possible state of affairs.
Paul seems to suggest it takes the form of c. And I wonder if he might clarify
if this is so?
If so, is string-theory akin to a deistic explanation in that it simply posits
in mathematical form an underlying reality behind the world of observable
phenomena that nevertheless could never be inconsistent with such phenomena no
matter how they were? If so, is there a possible bridge somewhere further down
the line where it might take a testable form that prohibits certain possible
observable states-of-affairs?
Donal
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
