Goat wrote:
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.
Goat wrote:
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".
Goat wrote:
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.
Goat wrote:
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.
Goat wrote:
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.
Goat wrote:
~~~~~
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.