I recently got in an argument with someone who said that String theory was untestable but considered part of science and therefore intelligent design should not be considered outside of science because it is untestable. I don't know anything about string theory and just came up with a bullshit answer that 'string theory was an extrapolation of the maths from theories which were testable' which seemed to work ok. Which was dishonest arguing, I know.
What is the correct response to this? Is it true that string theory is inherantly untestable?, and if so why do respected scientists discuss it?, and how do you properly counter the ID brigade using this?
String theory and ID....
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
-
Admiral Valdemar
- Outside Context Problem
- Posts: 31572
- Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
- Location: UK
Re: String theory and ID....
It's not inherently untestable; we currently are unable to test it, but at really, really high energies, IIRC, we should be able to test for strings.petesampras wrote:What is the correct response to this? Is it true that string theory is inherantly untestable?, and if so why do respected scientists discuss it?, and how do you properly counter the ID brigade using this?
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
F. Douglass
-
Dark Hellion
- Permanent n00b
- Posts: 3554
- Joined: 2002-08-25 07:56pm
-
Zero
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 2023
- Joined: 2005-05-02 10:55pm
- Location: Trying to find the divide between real memories and false ones.
Superstring theory isn't currently testable, because we don't have the energy capabilities. We also don't have mathematics powerful enough to fully understand what superstring theory means or implies. The difference is, superstring theory actually is still relatively well-defined. It's a proposed answer, isntead of a refutation of an answer with the claim that there is no answer, and thus a higher power must be involved. ID is bullshit; superstring theory is simply not fully understood.
So long, and thanks for all the fish
-
mr friendly guy
- The Doctor
- Posts: 11235
- Joined: 2004-12-12 10:55pm
- Location: In a 1960s police telephone box somewhere in Australia
From my understanding of what Brian Greene said on his tv show, string theory predicts the existence particles known as smarticles with certain properties. The newer particle accelerator being built in Europe would hopefully be able to test this particular prediction.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.
Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
What sort of energy capabilities would we need to test it and are far off from such capabilities?
"The Cosmos is expanding every second everyday, but their minds are slowly shrinking as they close their eyes and pray." - MC Hawking
"It's like a kids game. A morbid, blood-soaked Tetris game..." - Mike Rowe (Dirty Jobs)
"It's like a kids game. A morbid, blood-soaked Tetris game..." - Mike Rowe (Dirty Jobs)
Perhaps this page will help?Icehawk wrote:What sort of energy capabilities would we need to test it and are far off from such capabilities?
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
F. Douglass
There is remotely no comparison between the two, but when has that stopped anyone drawing ridiculous conclusions based on cutting-edge science? "The Tao of Physics" and "The Dancing Wu Li Masters", I'm looking at you!
Firstly, while String Theory may currently be untestable, it is falsifiable, i.e. a test can be devised that, should it fail, would prove that ST is false. The fact that this test is not currently practically possible is irrelevant to wether or not ST is a valid hypothesis. Falsifiability is not one of the attributes of ID.
Secondly, ST is still a theory in development, and is by no means completely worked out. Thus, it is not taught in basic science class, in stark contrast to the designs of the ID proponents.*
Thirdly, as has already been mentioned, it does not outright contradict the major findings of quantum physics, which did not outright contradict the macroscopic principles of Newtonian Physics. Each theory expanded on the previous theory, in areas that were unknown when the original theory was accepted, and agrees with the old theory in the areas that the old did cover. ID contradicts everything, and has no known areas where it predicts results that match observation. Because it makes no damned predictions in the first place! (See first point.)
*(Some idiot sociology prof from England argued for ID in the recent court case, and made the laughable argument that teaching ID in schools would promote research into the field, thereby fleshing out its details. Discovering the multiple absurdities of this "argument" is left as an exercise for the reader.)
Firstly, while String Theory may currently be untestable, it is falsifiable, i.e. a test can be devised that, should it fail, would prove that ST is false. The fact that this test is not currently practically possible is irrelevant to wether or not ST is a valid hypothesis. Falsifiability is not one of the attributes of ID.
Secondly, ST is still a theory in development, and is by no means completely worked out. Thus, it is not taught in basic science class, in stark contrast to the designs of the ID proponents.*
Thirdly, as has already been mentioned, it does not outright contradict the major findings of quantum physics, which did not outright contradict the macroscopic principles of Newtonian Physics. Each theory expanded on the previous theory, in areas that were unknown when the original theory was accepted, and agrees with the old theory in the areas that the old did cover. ID contradicts everything, and has no known areas where it predicts results that match observation. Because it makes no damned predictions in the first place! (See first point.)
*(Some idiot sociology prof from England argued for ID in the recent court case, and made the laughable argument that teaching ID in schools would promote research into the field, thereby fleshing out its details. Discovering the multiple absurdities of this "argument" is left as an exercise for the reader.)