On 12/12/2016 10:57 AM, Clark Goble wrote:
I think the bigger problem is that most of the big theories (loop quantum gravity, string theory) don’t really have even “in theory” tests that are limited by technology. String theory in particular has the problem that it explains too much.
I would compare today's physics to the period between Copernicus and Newton or to the phlogiston theories in the 18th c. Copernicus made a major leap that went beyond observation, and Ptolemy's math was more accurate in the details. In fact, Tycho Brahe made the best observations of his day primarily because he was trying to add *support* for Ptolemy. But Kepler, Brahe's assistant, found that ellipses fit the data better than circles upon circles. But he had no explanation for the choice of ellipses. Newton's "unified" theory related the data gathered by Galileo and Kepler. Phlogiston has been rejected, but it was a useful theory that enabled chemists to design experiments that gathered more precise data.
[String theoy] gets at some key issues in philosophy of science regarding what is or isn’t a legitimate theory and why.
That's true, but the word 'legitimate' sounds like an attempt to "block the way of inquiry". Ptolemy's circles upon circles were science fiction that enabled very precise measurements and predictions. Brahe was unwilling to give up that precision for a different version of science fiction by Copernicus. Newton's "action at a distance" was also science fiction, but it was a very useful fiction. Phlogiston was a useful fiction before the discovery of hydrogen and oxygen. For statistical mechanics, Boltzmann's atoms were another useful science fiction. Ernst Mach's condemnation of atoms as illegitimate not only blocked the way of inquiry, it drove Boltzmann to suicide. I'm not claiming that we should accept any current version of string theory as more than a hypothesis. But it might give somebody like Kepler, Lavoisier, or Boltzmann some insights that could lead to a more testable hypothesis. John
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
