In a message dated 9/6/12 1:43:59 AM, [email protected] writes:
> With formal models and codified methods we can design and evaluate for a > phenomenon we aren't sure can be adequately captured. > > The above restates the question Berg qoutes (another damned qoute out of > context) as an assertion. Does it make sense? The issue here is a > classic > if-then proposition but not one that can be logically proved. If the > model and > methods are right then the phenomenon can be recognized even if it can't > be > captured. This is at the crux of speculative science, such as string > theory. > String theory explains physical phenomena that can't be proved to exist or > which > remain 'inadequately captured'. String theory could be wrong even though > it > constitutes a model for designing a hypothetical universe > Oh good -- a chance for me to clangingly drop a name. When I was in college, Einstein wrote me that the wider and more all encompassing a theory, the less empirical evidence was needed to confirm it. (Trouble is, it never takes much disconfirming evidence to put a theory on the "dead universals" trash heap.)
