Question on 'The Scientific Method'

[Divine Insight]

Please remember, falsifiability is tantamount for a hypothesis to be credible.

I have some questions on the falsifiability of scientific hypotheses.

The Inflation Theory Hypothesis

If falsifiability is tantamount for a hypothesis to be credible, why then is Inflation Theory considered to be a credible scientific hypothesis? Is there any known way to falsify Inflation Theory?

The Multi-verse Hypothesis

Similarly, many credible scientists have hypothesized the existence of multiple universes. In fact, this has become a quite popular scientific hypothesis. It is often used as an excuse for why our universe has such extraordinary properties. The argument that is often given in the name of science is that there are simply infinitely many universes and this is why it should not be surprising that we live in one that just happens to be compatible with the evolution of living sentient beings. But it is also claimed that there is absolutely no possible way that we could ever detect these hypothetical multiple universes. Therefore this hypothesis cannot be falsifiable, yet it is often being held out as being scientifically rational hypothesis.

Why is this non-falsifiable hypothesis of multiple universes considered credible in science?

The String Theory Hypothesis

Everyone knows that String Theory is a widely held hypothesis in science. Yet many scientists point out that because of the small sizes of these strings this theory too may very well be non-falsifiable. Therefore there are many scientists who have openly argued that it's mere philosophy, and not science at all.

Why does so much scientific funding go toward research on a hypothesis that may ultimately not be falsifiable?

The Higher-Dimensional Hypothesis

It is also being hypothesized that our universe may consistent of as many as 11 dimensions that are curled up so tiny that they are virtually impossible to detect, and therefore impossible to falsify. Yet this hypothesis is being taken very seriously and given credibility as a scientific hypothesis.

Why is this hypothesis being seriously considered by so many scientists when it ultimately may not be falsifiable and certainly no one knows how to currently falsify it?

The M-Theory Hypothesis

M-theorists are imagining that our universe exists on the surface of some sort of higher-dimensional membrane. No one currently knows how this theory could be falsified. They even go further to hypothesis that there exist many of these membranes that are separate from our universe, and they have proposed that our membrane may have collided with another hypothetical membrane to produce what we see as a "Big Bang". Yet none of this is falsifiable at this time.

Why are scientists considering a hypothesis of imaginary higher-dimensional membranes that no one has ever seen, and insofar as we currently know cannot even be falsified?

~~~~~

So my question is this:

In modern science does a hypothesis actually need to actually be falsifiable? Or is it sufficient to merely suggest that it may someday potentially be falsifiable? Is it also sufficient to give other grounds for why a hypothesis might be feasible? (i.e. purely mathematical grounds?), even though it can never be falsified?

And how does this work for something like the multi-verse hypothesis where there is no reason to believe that multiple universes should ever be detectable, and therefore the theory can never be confirmed nor falsified ever.

In other words, the scientific community itself doesn't appear to be taking the idea that their hypotheses must be falsifiable very seriously.

So I'm questioning why it should be held out in science that a hypothesis needs to be falsifiable, when much of modern science today is based on research around theories that are not currently falsifiable. And even in some cases such as the multiple universe hypothesis, they never will be falsifiable. Yet this hypothesis is taken so seriously that it is actually being used as an excuse to explain why our universe is so miraculous.

There seems to be some inconsistency here between the demand that scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable to be credible, and the behavior of the scientific community to constantly be offering hypotheses that are not falsifiable, and in some cases, such as the multiple universe hypothesis, actually using these non-falsifiable hypotheses as an argument for why our universe is so special.

Where is there any consistency in their position here?

They don't appear to be following their own rules.

[A Troubled Man]

Perhaps, you may be missing the point of falsifiability. A hypothesis must have the capacity of falsifiability, whether through deductive logic or experimentation. But, it is not so much the capacity to 'prove' the hypothesis false, but instead to rigorously make great efforts to the continuation of questioning the hypothesis.

For example, Relativity has been questioned ad nauseum and has been part of countless experiments and working situations, GPS being a prime example, yet it has the capacity for falsifiability if someone comes along and accomplishes that.

[Divine Insight]

A hypothesis must have the capacity of falsifiability, whether through deductive logic or experimentation.

Oh? So now mere deductive logic counts as science?

In that case I'm still at a bit of a loss here. So now your saying that science isn't any different from standard philosophy?

I thought you held in your sticky post on The Scientific Method that science requires that a credible hypothesis must offer quantitatively predictable observations that can be falsified by experiment.

Can you explain how this works in the case of the scientific hypothesis that there may exist multiple universes? And even potentially infinitely many of them?

This claim obviously can't be falsified via any quantitatively predictable observations. Yet it is often held up as being a credible scientific hypothesis.

So in what way is the scientific hypothesis that states there may exist a multitude of universes falsifiable? And therefore a credible scientific hypothesis?

Are their any quantitatively predictable observations or experiments that can be done to falsify it?

Can you even offer how it could be falsified in terms of pure logical reasoning?

I personally feel that this particular scientific hypothesis is somewhat important since it is often held up by people in the name of science as being an explanation for how our particular universe has such extremely rare and unusual properties.

This so-called "scientific argument" is often given to claim that there simply exists infinitely many universes, and therefore it's no big deal that our universe just happens to be extremely unique in its properties.

How is this hypothesis justified in science as being credible?

In other words, by the criteria given in your own sticky The Scientific Method it must be falsifiable before it can be considered to be scientifically credible.

So I'm asking how this particular scientific hypothesis can be considered to be credible by this criteria.

This should be a very simple question for any scientist to answer.

So I await your explanation.

[Goat]

Please remember, falsifiability is tantamount for a hypothesis to be credible.

I have some questions on the falsifiability of scientific hypotheses.

The Inflation Theory Hypothesis

If falsifiability is tantamount for a hypothesis to be credible, why then is Inflation Theory considered to be a credible scientific hypothesis? Is there any known way to falsify Inflation Theory?

Inflation theory makes predictions. It made specific predictions about how matter is distributed for example. The patterns discovered in the background radiation was predicted before it was found. If the kind of patterns they were looking for were NOT found, the current inflationary theory would have been falsified. If observations find a section of the universe that on average is getting closer to use (rather than just "local' phenomena) , then inflationary theory would be falsified.

The Multi-verse Hypothesis

Similarly, many credible scientists have hypothesized the existence of multiple universes. In fact, this has become a quite popular scientific hypothesis. It is often used as an excuse for why our universe has such extraordinary properties. The argument that is often given in the name of science is that there are simply infinitely many universes and this is why it should not be surprising that we live in one that just happens to be compatible with the evolution of living sentient beings. But it is also claimed that there is absolutely no possible way that we could ever detect these hypothetical multiple universes. Therefore this hypothesis cannot be falsifiable, yet it is often being held out as being scientifically rational hypothesis.

Why is this non-falsifiable hypothesis of multiple universes considered credible in science?

Well, it's based on mathematical projections of what we KNOW. They are looking for ways to test it. Right now, it is more 'scientifically based philosophical speculation.' It should be acknowledged as such... until such time as they can test it.

The String Theory Hypothesis

Everyone knows that String Theory is a widely held hypothesis in science. Yet many scientists point out that because of the small sizes of these strings this theory too may very well be non-falsifiable. Therefore there are many scientists who have openly argued that it's mere philosophy, and not science at all.

Why does so much scientific funding go toward research on a hypothesis that may ultimately not be falsifiable?

Because there is no credible alternative (yet). Some people are pursuing other ideas. I personally am very elliptical about it..;. but damn, it would be fun to be proven wrong.

The Higher-Dimensional Hypothesis

It is also being hypothesized that our universe may consistent of as many as 11 dimensions that are curled up so tiny that they are virtually impossible to detect, and therefore impossible to falsify. Yet this hypothesis is being taken very seriously and given credibility as a scientific hypothesis.

Why is this hypothesis being seriously considered by so many scientists when it ultimately may not be falsifiable and certainly no one knows how to currently falsify it?

That actually is part of string theory. It would be nice if someone would come up with a practical application of the formulas, but I ain't holding my breath.

The M-Theory Hypothesis

M-theorists are imagining that our universe exists on the surface of some sort of higher-dimensional membrane. No one currently knows how this theory could be falsified. They even go further to hypothesis that there exist many of these membranes that are separate from our universe, and they have proposed that our membrane may have collided with another hypothetical membrane to produce what we see as a "Big Bang". Yet none of this is falsifiable at this time.

Why are scientists considering a hypothesis of imaginary higher-dimensional membranes that no one has ever seen, and insofar as we currently know cannot even be falsified?

Well, that is again, another variation of string theory. String theory came about to try to combine the theories of relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. Both theories have plenty of experimental data that have them making astonishing accurate predictions in their own realm.. but.. the two pieces of math appear to be mutually exclusive. However, both make amazingly accurate predictions .. and increasingly sophisticated experiments confirm those predictions are correct. That frustrates that theoretical folks, since the math in them can't be combined. The various speculations people are spending so much time on is trying to get them to be compatible. Getting them to work together would be a HUGE HUGE leap of understanding about the universe.

~~~~~

So my question is this:

In modern science does a hypothesis actually need to actually be falsifiable? Or is it sufficient to merely suggest that it may someday potentially be falsifiable? Is it also sufficient to give other grounds for why a hypothesis might be feasible? (i.e. purely mathematical grounds?), even though it can never be falsified?

And how does this work for something like the multi-verse hypothesis where there is no reason to believe that multiple universes should ever be detectable, and therefore the theory can never be confirmed nor falsified ever.

In other words, the scientific community itself doesn't appear to be taking the idea that their hypotheses must be falsifiable very seriously.

So I'm questioning why it should be held out in science that a hypothesis needs to be falsifiable, when much of modern science today is based on research around theories that are not currently falsifiable. And even in some cases such as the multiple universe hypothesis, they never will be falsifiable. Yet this hypothesis is taken so seriously that it is actually being used as an excuse to explain why our universe is so miraculous.

There seems to be some inconsistency here between the demand that scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable to be credible, and the behavior of the scientific community to constantly be offering hypotheses that are not falsifiable, and in some cases, such as the multiple universe hypothesis, actually using these non-falsifiable hypotheses as an argument for why our universe is so special.

Where is there any consistency in their position here?

They don't appear to be following their own rules.

The one thing they ARE doing is using two sets of math that have been HIGHLY accurate in prediction behavior of the universe, and seem to be mutually exclusive to each other. So, they want to resolve this seemingly contradiction.

It might not be possible to. Scientific?? Well, those techniques have been very successful in letting us do things like.. build computers, and GPS, and rockets, and all sorts of nifthy things. .. that we use both relativity and QM for. We just can't get the equations to work together.

You will find there will be disagreement on theoretical physicists on that. Paul Davies thinks the whole multi-universe is the sheerest speculation and non-scientific.

George Ellis will agree it is more scientifically based philosophy, but things it Still is a "productive research program". \\

If they manage to be able com combine GR and QM, the payoff could be amazing.

On the other hand, they might not be able to.

[Divine Insight]

Inflation theory makes predictions. It made specific predictions about how matter is distributed for example. The patterns discovered in the background radiation was predicted before it was found. If the kind of patterns they were looking for were NOT found, the current inflationary theory would have been falsified. If observations find a section of the universe that on average is getting closer to use (rather than just "local' phenomena) , then inflationary theory would be falsified.

I agree that it makes predictions. Basically three of them. It solves the magnetic monopole problem, it solves the horizon problem, and it solves the flatness problem.

It's the highly predictive nature of the theory that caused it to become highly credible. None the less the theory of inflation itself would be very difficult if not impossible to falsify. I mean, sure if some of the obvious thins of the universe were not true then it could be falsified. But it would be pretty hard to falsify the actual event of inflation itself. The crux of the theory itself would be very difficult if not impossible to falsify.

As far as the predictions that it makes, M-theoreists have proclaimed their their theory of colliding membranes also satisfies all of these predictions.

By they way I'm a big fan of Alan Guth and Inflation theory. Still I point it out because modern science is not so much concerned about falsifiability as they are with other things such as it's ability to make impressive predictions, etc.

I might also add that Guth's inflation theory ultimately still depends upon nothing more than a scientifically plausible inflation field that would actually cause this inflation to take place.

No such field has even been detected. So this theory is based entirely on plausibility. And certainly not on any quantitatively predictable observations or experiments.

The Multi-verse Hypothesis

Similarly, many credible scientists have hypothesized the existence of multiple universes. In fact, this has become a quite popular scientific hypothesis. It is often used as an excuse for why our universe has such extraordinary properties. The argument that is often given in the name of science is that there are simply infinitely many universes and this is why it should not be surprising that we live in one that just happens to be compatible with the evolution of living sentient beings. But it is also claimed that there is absolutely no possible way that we could ever detect these hypothetical multiple universes. Therefore this hypothesis cannot be falsifiable, yet it is often being held out as being scientifically rational hypothesis.

Why is this non-falsifiable hypothesis of multiple universes considered credible in science?

Well, it's based on mathematical projections of what we KNOW. They are looking for ways to test it. Right now, it is more 'scientifically based philosophical speculation.' It should be acknowledged as such... until such time as they can test it.

Base on what we KNOW? I'm not so sure about that Goat.

Part of what a multiple universe hypothesis is actually based upon an assumption of a process of inflation.

The theory we just mentioned above that is far from confirmed. The idea is that a process of inflation may not stop all at one place and it may continue on forever producing universe after universe endlessly. The only problem is that this hypothesis itself is already sitting atop an unconfirmed hypothesis.

I agree that at the point it truly is nothing more than wild spectulation.

None the less it's being used by atheists constantly to justify "scientifically" why our universe doesn't need to be so miraculous. But it's a totally unconfirm speculation at this point by science.

Hardly a "credible hypothesis". Especially not by the criteria given in sticky of this sub-forum on 'The Scientific Method'.

Yet it's being passed around as having "Scientific support or credibility".

The String Theory Hypothesis

Everyone knows that String Theory is a widely held hypothesis in science. Yet many scientists point out that because of the small sizes of these strings this theory too may very well be non-falsifiable. Therefore there are many scientists who have openly argued that it's mere philosophy, and not science at all.

Why does so much scientific funding go toward research on a hypothesis that may ultimately not be falsifiable?

Because there is no credible alternative (yet). Some people are pursuing other ideas. I personally am very elliptical about it..;. but damn, it would be fun to be proven wrong.

I personally prefer Loop Quantum Gravity.

I have bones to pick with String Theory. Not the least of which is that their theory is almost entirely mathematical speculation. And this leads to a possible ten to the 500 power possible theories (or at least this many different ways in which the multiple dimensions can be twisted up)

Can something that points to ten to the 500 power of possible answers even truly be called a "Theory"?

Sounds to me like wild speculation at it's very best.

The Higher-Dimensional Hypothesis

It is also being hypothesized that our universe may consistent of as many as 11 dimensions that are curled up so tiny that they are virtually impossible to detect, and therefore impossible to falsify. Yet this hypothesis is being taken very seriously and given credibility as a scientific hypothesis.

Why is this hypothesis being seriously considered by so many scientists when it ultimately may not be falsifiable and certainly no one knows how to currently falsify it?

That actually is part of string theory. It would be nice if someone would come up with a practical application of the formulas, but I ain't holding my breath.

Actually it's not really "part" of String Theory. It simply that string theory requires this many dimensions to even work. So these multiple dimensions are being proposed just to give String Theory a reason to live.

But again, where is there any scientific credibility in this?

Why don't we just propose that fairies might make string theory work.

The M-Theory Hypothesis

M-theorists are imagining that our universe exists on the surface of some sort of higher-dimensional membrane. No one currently knows how this theory could be falsified. They even go further to hypothesis that there exist many of these membranes that are separate from our universe, and they have proposed that our membrane may have collided with another hypothetical membrane to produce what we see as a "Big Bang". Yet none of this is falsifiable at this time.

Why are scientists considering a hypothesis of imaginary higher-dimensional membranes that no one has ever seen, and insofar as we currently know cannot even be falsified?

Well, that is again, another variation of string theory. String theory came about to try to combine the theories of relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. Both theories have plenty of experimental data that have them making astonishing accurate predictions in their own realm.. but.. the two pieces of math appear to be mutually exclusive. However, both make amazingly accurate predictions .. and increasingly sophisticated experiments confirm those predictions are correct. That frustrates that theoretical folks, since the math in them can't be combined. The various speculations people are spending so much time on is trying to get them to be compatible. Getting them to work together would be a HUGE HUGE leap of understanding about the universe.

Yes, I understand this. In fact, String Theory is being pursued in large part because it originally "promised" to unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

But that promise appears to be nothing more than a promise.

How long has this been going on now and still no progress?

I agree with Lee Smolin that Loop Quantum Gravity may actually have far more promise.

But whatever.

The bottom line is still the same. No quantitatively predictable observations yet.

And thus they should have no credibility, but there sure is a lot of money being poured into them in the name of science.

~~~~~

So my question is this:

In modern science does a hypothesis actually need to actually be falsifiable? Or is it sufficient to merely suggest that it may someday potentially be falsifiable? Is it also sufficient to give other grounds for why a hypothesis might be feasible? (i.e. purely mathematical grounds?), even though it can never be falsified?

And how does this work for something like the multi-verse hypothesis where there is no reason to believe that multiple universes should ever be detectable, and therefore the theory can never be confirmed nor falsified ever.

In other words, the scientific community itself doesn't appear to be taking the idea that their hypotheses must be falsifiable very seriously.

So I'm questioning why it should be held out in science that a hypothesis needs to be falsifiable, when much of modern science today is based on research around theories that are not currently falsifiable. And even in some cases such as the multiple universe hypothesis, they never will be falsifiable. Yet this hypothesis is taken so seriously that it is actually being used as an excuse to explain why our universe is so miraculous.

There seems to be some inconsistency here between the demand that scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable to be credible, and the behavior of the scientific community to constantly be offering hypotheses that are not falsifiable, and in some cases, such as the multiple universe hypothesis, actually using these non-falsifiable hypotheses as an argument for why our universe is so special.

Where is there any consistency in their position here?

They don't appear to be following their own rules.

The one thing they ARE doing is using two sets of math that have been HIGHLY accurate in prediction behavior of the universe, and seem to be mutually exclusive to each other. So, they want to resolve this seemingly contradiction.

It might not be possible to. Scientific?? Well, those techniques have been very successful in letting us do things like.. build computers, and GPS, and rockets, and all sorts of nifthy things. .. that we use both relativity and QM for. We just can't get the equations to work together.

You will find there will be disagreement on theoretical physicists on that. Paul Davies thinks the whole multi-universe is the sheerest speculation and non-scientific.

George Ellis will agree it is more scientifically based philosophy, but things it Still is a "productive research program". \\

If they manage to be able com combine GR and QM, the payoff could be amazing.

On the other hand, they might not be able to.

Well. Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't be going any of this research. I'm all for research.

I'm just pointing out that MODERN science is not following the OLD RULES anymore. They are far more prepared to go off on wild speculations.

Is this a bad thing?

No, I personally don't think it is.

But does it adhere to the OLD SCHOOL definition that is given in the sticky "The Scientific Method".

No it doesn't.

Modern scientists don't restrict themselves to those Old School ideals anymore.

And that's all I'm saying.

~~~~~

And the reason I'm saying this is because people are pointing to my theories about reality proclaiming "They aren't scientific".

But that's hogwash. They may not be "scientific" based on the Old School scientific criteria of the 19th and 20th centuries. But they are certainly a scientific as many of the theories that are being pursued and proposed by modern scientists today.

The Old School criteria are loosing favor to modern scientific research methods.

Scientists are openly taking the view, "Hey my theory may not be testable today, but that doesn't mean that it won't be testable tomorrow".

In fact, String Theory absolutely depends upon this ideal.

In fact, String Theory doesn't even have a single TESTABLE theory,.

What they have is 10 to the power of 500 possible guesses.

And they aren't even sure how to narrow that down to a single testable theory.

So were is the falsifiable credibility in that?

I don't believe that direct and instantaneous falsifiability is a criteria for scientific credibility anymore.

It certainly doesn't appear that way today.

Maybe in the Old School it was. But not today.

[A Troubled Man]

Oh? So now mere deductive logic counts as science?

In that case I'm still at a bit of a loss here. So now your saying that science isn't any different from standard philosophy?

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.

Here's an example of a deductive argument:

1. All men are mortal
2. A Troubled Man is a man.
2. Therefore, A Troubled Man is mortal.

Can you explain how this works in the case of the scientific hypothesis that there may exist multiple universes? And even potentially infinitely many of them?

Those hypotheses are based on mathematical constructs.

This claim obviously can't be falsified via any quantitatively predictable observations. Yet it is often held up as being a credible scientific hypothesis.

So in what way is the scientific hypothesis that states there may exist a multitude of universes falsifiable? And therefore a credible scientific hypothesis?

Are their any quantitatively predictable observations or experiments that can be done to falsify it?

None that I'm aware, however the capacity for falsifiability is contained within and perhaps may be falsified at some time in the future. Since, they are only hypotheses, they have yet to become theories.

Can you even offer how it could be falsified in terms of pure logical reasoning?

Perhaps, one could argue the fact that we observe on one universe.

I personally feel that this particular scientific hypothesis is somewhat important since it is often held up by people in the name of science as being an explanation for how our particular universe has such extremely rare and unusual properties.

This so-called "scientific argument" is often given to claim that there simply exists infinitely many universes, and therefore it's no big deal that our universe just happens to be extremely unique in its properties.

How is this hypothesis justified in science as being credible?

Again, it is a mathematical construct, and like other mathematical constructs, the capacity for falsifiability allows it be continuously questioned.

The prediction of Black Holes, for example, was based on a mathematical construct, derivatives from General Relativity.

So I'm asking how this particular scientific hypothesis can be considered to be credible by this criteria.

This should be a very simple question for any scientist to answer.

So I await your explanation.

Shrodinger's Cat is a perfect example of deductive logic in action. He didn't actually put a cat into a box and then break a flask of poison, yet it is still a thought experiment continued to be used today.

[A Troubled Man]

Yes, I understand this. In fact, String Theory is being pursued in large part because it originally "promised" to unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

But that promise appears to be nothing more than a promise.

How long has this been going on now and still no progress?

I agree with Lee Smolin that Loop Quantum gravity may actually have far more promise.

But whatever.

The bottom line is still the same. No quantitatively predictable observations yet.

String Theory is more about predicting SuperSymmetry (SUSY) and about what scientists would observe regarding the results at the Large Hadron Collider.

:String/M theory will predict that our universe has supersymmetry, broken at the 30 − 100 TeV scale. If at the lower values, we may see gluinos at LHC, while if at the higher values, it will be very hard to see any evidence for supersymmetry.:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4634

"The string landscape and low energy supersymmetry"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.6626

[Divine Insight]

Oh? So now mere deductive logic counts as science?

In that case I'm still at a bit of a loss here. So now your saying that science isn't any different from standard philosophy?

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.

Here's an example of a deductive argument:

1. All men are mortal
2. A Troubled Man is a man.
2. Therefore, A Troubled Man is mortal.

That is just standard logic used in philosophy in general.

There's nothing specifically scientific about pure logical reasoning.

So you haven't provided any explanation of how science is different from any other philosophy if mere deductive arguments are sufficient for scientific credibility.

Can you explain how this works in the case of the scientific hypothesis that there may exist multiple universes? And even potentially infinitely many of them?

Those hypotheses are based on mathematical constructs.

And so all mathematical constructs qualify as credible scientific hypotheses?

I can create mathematical constructs to propose just about anything I so desire.

In fact, it is extremely easy to create a mathematical construct that describes the world as being infinitely dimensional. And that would be a valid mathematical construct. So would that then make it a credible scientific hypothesis?

I'm just trying to get clear on what constitutes a credible scientific hypothesis.

This claim obviously can't be falsified via any quantitatively predictable observations. Yet it is often held up as being a credible scientific hypothesis.

So in what way is the scientific hypothesis that states there may exist a multitude of universes falsifiable? And therefore a credible scientific hypothesis?

Are their any quantitatively predictable observations or experiments that can be done to falsify it?

None that I'm aware, however the capacity for falsifiability is contained within and perhaps may be falsified at some time in the future. Since, they are only hypotheses, they have yet to become theories.

So, in other words, you're saying that a hypothesis that even has an unexplained potential for possibly becoming falsifiable in some imagined future assuming that someone can come up with a way to potentially falsify it, would then be a credible scientific hypothesis.

Boy that leaves open just about any kind of speculation one can imagine.

For example I could hypothesis that fairies exist. How could that be falsified? At best all anyone can say is that they haven't seen a fairy yet. But so what? We haven't seen supersymmetry yet either. Nor have we seen any evidence that our universe is fundamentally based on 11- dimensions.

These are scientific fairies that have yet to be seen. Yet they are considered to be credible scientific hypotheses.

Can you even offer how it could be falsified in terms of pure logical reasoning?

Perhaps, one could argue the fact that we observe on one universe.

Well if we only observe one universe and no one has ever seen these multiple fairy universes, then why is the hypothesis that multiples universes exist scientifically credible but the hypothesis that fairies exist is not?

I personally feel that this particular scientific hypothesis is somewhat important since it is often held up by people in the name of science as being an explanation for how our particular universe has such extremely rare and unusual properties.

This so-called "scientific argument" is often given to claim that there simply exists infinitely many universes, and therefore it's no big deal that our universe just happens to be extremely unique in its properties.

How is this hypothesis justified in science as being credible?

Again, it is a mathematical construct, and like other mathematical constructs, the capacity for falsifiability allows it be continuously questioned.

There are many cases where mathematical constructs cannot be falsified in practice because mathematics itself is an abstraction of pure through.

Take Gabriele's Horn for example. A very well-known mathematical construct. It's interior surface area is infinite, and therefore would require an infinite amount of paint to pain it. However, if you stand the horn up so it's mouth is at the top you can only fill it with a finite volume of paint because mathematical its interior volume comes out to be a finite number, which can be quite small.

So here we have an example where mathematically you would need an infinite amount of paint to paint the interior infinite surface of Gabriele's Horn, but if you stand it up on end you can fill it entirely with a small amount of paint.

In other words, there are paradoxes contained right in our very own mathematical formalism that cannot exist in the real world.

So why should mathematics be a dependable criteria for a scientific hypothesis?

Mathematics is basically a pure philosophy that can't always be applied to the physical world.

The prediction of Black Holes, for example, was based on a mathematical construct, derivatives from General Relativity.

I agree it most certainly was, which drives home my point that falsification is not tantamount to the credibility of a modern scientific hypothesis. Often times hypotheses are deemed to be credible based on other criteria (such as mathematical plausibility).

So I'm asking how this particular scientific hypothesis can be considered to be credible by this criteria.

This should be a very simple question for any scientist to answer.

So I await your explanation.

Shrodinger's Cat is a perfect example of deductive logic in action. He didn't actually put a cat into a box and then break a flask of poison, yet it is still a thought experiment continued to be used today.

Boy you really blew your criteria away with this one.

I agree that this is indeed considered to be a valid thought experiment used in science to this very day. However, ironically Schrodinger actually introduced this deductive logic to show how Quantum Mechanics is actually absurd because now we have an entire macro living animal which must be in a quantum state of superposition. And Schrodinger was pointing out how utterly absurd this is.

Yet Quantum Mechanics wins the day, and Schrodinger's Cat must face the reality of being in a quantum state of superposition no matter how absurd this might sound.

And that leads to the deductive logical reasoning that reality must be observer-dependent, and therefore observer-created.

So there you've got a hypothesis that states that reality is entirely observer-dependent and thus observer-created that is based on credible scientific criteria.

In fact this was indeed proposed by a scientist name Eugene Wigner. His ideas are still held by many scientists today as having credibility at least in terms of deductive logical reasoning.

Can any of this be falsified? Well, no one to date has ever been able to figure out a way to falsify any of it. From an entire macro cat being in a quantum state of superposition, to reality being observer-created. These are all still wide open questions to this very day.

And all of these questions are just as credible in terms of mathematics and pure deductive logic. Therefore all of the hypothesis that arise from them are just as credible in terms of mathematics and deductive logic.

No one has been able to propose a falsifiable hypothesis to settle the riddles to these observations.

And this is why they remain credible riddles.

[Divine Insight]

String Theory is more about predicting SuperSymmetry (SUSY) and about what scientists would observe regarding the results at the Large Hadron Collider.

Actually String Theory requires SuperSymmetry in order to continue to be a viable theory. There are other theories that also depend upon SuperSymmetry being real.

If no SuperSymmetry is found all of those theories will go down the tubes.

However if SuperSymmetry turns out to be true, it won't prove String Theory is right. It will simply keep String Theory afloat. But verifying the existence of the strings will still be a long way off, and still have not yet been shown to be falsifiable.

[Goat]

Inflation theory makes predictions. It made specific predictions about how matter is distributed for example. The patterns discovered in the background radiation was predicted before it was found. If the kind of patterns they were looking for were NOT found, the current inflationary theory would have been falsified. If observations find a section of the universe that on average is getting closer to use (rather than just "local' phenomena) , then inflationary theory would be falsified.

I agree that it makes predictions. Basically three of them. It solves the magnetic monopole problem, it solves the horizon problem, and it solves the flatness problem.

It's the highly predictive nature of the theory that caused it to become highly credible. None the less the theory of inflation itself would be very difficult if not impossible to falsify. I mean, sure if some of the obvious thins of the universe were not true then it could be falsified. But it would be pretty hard to falsify the actual event of inflation itself. The crux of the theory itself would be very difficult if not impossible to falsify.

As far as the predictions that it makes, M-theoreists have proclaimed their their theory of colliding membranes also satisfies all of these predictions.

By they way I'm a big fan of Alan Guth and Inflation theory. Still I point it out because modern science is not so much concerned about falsifiability as they are with other things such as it's ability to make impressive predictions, etc.

I might also add that Guth's inflation theory ultimately still depends upon nothing more than a scientifically plausible inflation field that would actually cause this inflation to take place.

No such field has even been detected. So this theory is based entirely on plausibility. And certainly not on any quantitatively predictable observations or experiments.

The Multi-verse Hypothesis

Similarly, many credible scientists have hypothesized the existence of multiple universes. In fact, this has become a quite popular scientific hypothesis. It is often used as an excuse for why our universe has such extraordinary properties. The argument that is often given in the name of science is that there are simply infinitely many universes and this is why it should not be surprising that we live in one that just happens to be compatible with the evolution of living sentient beings. But it is also claimed that there is absolutely no possible way that we could ever detect these hypothetical multiple universes. Therefore this hypothesis cannot be falsifiable, yet it is often being held out as being scientifically rational hypothesis.

Why is this non-falsifiable hypothesis of multiple universes considered credible in science?

Well, it's based on mathematical projections of what we KNOW. They are looking for ways to test it. Right now, it is more 'scientifically based philosophical speculation.' It should be acknowledged as such... until such time as they can test it.

Base on what we KNOW? I'm not so sure about that Goat.

Part of what a multiple universe hypothesis is actually based upon an assumption of a process of inflation.

The theory we just mentioned above that is far from confirmed. The idea is that a process of inflation may not stop all at one place and it may continue on forever producing universe after universe endlessly. The only problem is that this hypothesis itself is already sitting atop an unconfirmed hypothesis.

I agree that at the point it truly is nothing more than wild spectulation.

None the less it's being used by atheists constantly to justify "scientifically" why our universe doesn't need to be so miraculous. But it's a totally unconfirm speculation at this point by science.

Hardly a "credible hypothesis". Especially not by the criteria given in sticky of this sub-forum on 'The Scientific Method'.

Yet it's being passed around as having "Scientific support or credibility".

The String Theory Hypothesis

Everyone knows that String Theory is a widely held hypothesis in science. Yet many scientists point out that because of the small sizes of these strings this theory too may very well be non-falsifiable. Therefore there are many scientists who have openly argued that it's mere philosophy, and not science at all.

Why does so much scientific funding go toward research on a hypothesis that may ultimately not be falsifiable?

Because there is no credible alternative (yet). Some people are pursuing other ideas. I personally am very elliptical about it..;. but damn, it would be fun to be proven wrong.

I personally prefer Loop Quantum Gravity.

I have bones to pick with String Theory. Not the least of which is that their theory is almost entirely mathematical speculation. And this leads to a possible ten to the 500 power possible theories (or at least this many different ways in which the multiple dimensions can be twisted up)

Can something that points to ten to the 500 power of possible answers even truly be called a "Theory"?

Sounds to me like wild speculation at it's very best.

The Higher-Dimensional Hypothesis

It is also being hypothesized that our universe may consistent of as many as 11 dimensions that are curled up so tiny that they are virtually impossible to detect, and therefore impossible to falsify. Yet this hypothesis is being taken very seriously and given credibility as a scientific hypothesis.

Why is this hypothesis being seriously considered by so many scientists when it ultimately may not be falsifiable and certainly no one knows how to currently falsify it?

That actually is part of string theory. It would be nice if someone would come up with a practical application of the formulas, but I ain't holding my breath.

Actually it's not really "part" of String Theory. It simply that string theory requires this many dimensions to even work. So these multiple dimensions are being proposed just to give String Theory a reason to live.

But again, where is there any scientific credibility in this?

Why don't we just propose that fairies might make string theory work.

The M-Theory Hypothesis

M-theorists are imagining that our universe exists on the surface of some sort of higher-dimensional membrane. No one currently knows how this theory could be falsified. They even go further to hypothesis that there exist many of these membranes that are separate from our universe, and they have proposed that our membrane may have collided with another hypothetical membrane to produce what we see as a "Big Bang". Yet none of this is falsifiable at this time.

Why are scientists considering a hypothesis of imaginary higher-dimensional membranes that no one has ever seen, and insofar as we currently know cannot even be falsified?

Well, that is again, another variation of string theory. String theory came about to try to combine the theories of relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. Both theories have plenty of experimental data that have them making astonishing accurate predictions in their own realm.. but.. the two pieces of math appear to be mutually exclusive. However, both make amazingly accurate predictions .. and increasingly sophisticated experiments confirm those predictions are correct. That frustrates that theoretical folks, since the math in them can't be combined. The various speculations people are spending so much time on is trying to get them to be compatible. Getting them to work together would be a HUGE HUGE leap of understanding about the universe.

Yes, I understand this. In fact, String Theory is being pursued in large part because it originally "promised" to unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

But that promise appears to be nothing more than a promise.

How long has this been going on now and still no progress?

I agree with Lee Smolin that Loop Quantum Gravity may actually have far more promise.

But whatever.

The bottom line is still the same. No quantitatively predictable observations yet.

And thus they should have no credibility, but there sure is a lot of money being poured into them in the name of science.

~~~~~

So my question is this:

In modern science does a hypothesis actually need to actually be falsifiable? Or is it sufficient to merely suggest that it may someday potentially be falsifiable? Is it also sufficient to give other grounds for why a hypothesis might be feasible? (i.e. purely mathematical grounds?), even though it can never be falsified?

And how does this work for something like the multi-verse hypothesis where there is no reason to believe that multiple universes should ever be detectable, and therefore the theory can never be confirmed nor falsified ever.

In other words, the scientific community itself doesn't appear to be taking the idea that their hypotheses must be falsifiable very seriously.

So I'm questioning why it should be held out in science that a hypothesis needs to be falsifiable, when much of modern science today is based on research around theories that are not currently falsifiable. And even in some cases such as the multiple universe hypothesis, they never will be falsifiable. Yet this hypothesis is taken so seriously that it is actually being used as an excuse to explain why our universe is so miraculous.

There seems to be some inconsistency here between the demand that scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable to be credible, and the behavior of the scientific community to constantly be offering hypotheses that are not falsifiable, and in some cases, such as the multiple universe hypothesis, actually using these non-falsifiable hypotheses as an argument for why our universe is so special.

Where is there any consistency in their position here?

They don't appear to be following their own rules.

The one thing they ARE doing is using two sets of math that have been HIGHLY accurate in prediction behavior of the universe, and seem to be mutually exclusive to each other. So, they want to resolve this seemingly contradiction.

It might not be possible to. Scientific?? Well, those techniques have been very successful in letting us do things like.. build computers, and GPS, and rockets, and all sorts of nifthy things. .. that we use both relativity and QM for. We just can't get the equations to work together.

You will find there will be disagreement on theoretical physicists on that. Paul Davies thinks the whole multi-universe is the sheerest speculation and non-scientific.

George Ellis will agree it is more scientifically based philosophy, but things it Still is a "productive research program". \\

If they manage to be able com combine GR and QM, the payoff could be amazing.

On the other hand, they might not be able to.

Well. Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't be going any of this research. I'm all for research.

I'm just pointing out that MODERN science is not following the OLD RULES anymore. They are far more prepared to go off on wild speculations.

Is this a bad thing?

No, I personally don't think it is.

But does it adhere to the OLD SCHOOL definition that is given in the sticky "The Scientific Method".

No it doesn't.

Modern scientists don't restrict themselves to those Old School ideals anymore.

And that's all I'm saying.

~~~~~

And the reason I'm saying this is because people are pointing to my theories about reality proclaiming "They aren't scientific".

But that's hogwash. They may not be "scientific" based on the Old School scientific criteria of the 19th and 20th centuries. But they are certainly a scientific as many of the theories that are being pursued and proposed by modern scientists today.

The Old School criteria are loosing favor to modern scientific research methods.

Scientists are openly taking the view, "Hey my theory may not be testable today, but that doesn't mean that it won't be testable tomorrow".

In fact, String Theory absolutely depends upon this ideal.

In fact, String Theory doesn't even have a single TESTABLE theory,.

What they have is 10 to the power of 500 possible guesses.

And they aren't even sure how to narrow that down to a single testable theory.

So were is the falsifiable credibility in that?

I don't believe that direct and instantaneous falsifiability is a criteria for scientific credibility anymore.

It certainly doesn't appear that way today.

Maybe in the Old School it was. But not today.

Well, yes, the m-theory people do claim that their model accounts for that too.. however, when it comes to the inflationary theory.. well.. it predicted it before it was known, and m-theory accounts for what is known. The m-theory people have not come up with a method that goes BEYOND what is known to distinguish it from inflationary theory. Thus far, they have not been able to come up with a prediction to distinguish them from what is predicted by inflationary theory.