Balancing theories and empirical data, especially concerning string theory

In summary, string theory is a promising but still unproven theory that has come up with some interesting ideas, but lacks empirical evidence to support it. Scientists have always relied on non-empirical arguments to trust theories, but this can be a problem because it can lead to over-eagerness and blindness to alternative possibilities.
  • #36
Vanadium 50 said:
Please give an example of spending billions of dollars on a theory that should be abandoned. Multiple examples would be even better.
SUSY.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier and kodama
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Vanadium 50 said:
Please give an example of spending billions of dollars on a theory that should be abandoned. Multiple examples would be even better.
I was talking about the LHC: https://www.google.com/search?q=lhc+cost
 
  • #38
Demystifier said:
Humans comprehend infinity by reducing it to something finite. All explanations of infinity take a finite number of symbols.

Or to paraphrase Janis Joplin, infinity's just another word for something left to gain.
The symbol of infinity is infinite. Just like a circle is.
 
  • #39
jaketodd said:
I was talking about the LHC:
And what theory "that should be abandoned" has caused us to spend billions on the LHC?

Here's what I think. I think you just Made It Up. You will find that's not how PF works and that's not how science works.
 
  • #40
jaketodd said:
The symbol of infinity is infinite. Just like a circle is.
No, it's finite but without boundary.
 
  • #41
Vanadium 50 said:
And what theory "that should be abandoned" has caused us to spend billions on the LHC?

Here's what I think. I think you just Made It Up. You will find that's not how PF works and that's not how science works.
It's my opinion that way too much money is spent on "science." A lot of the time, tons of money is spent on complicated operations and research that yield very little actual advances. That's the gist here.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy and Motore
  • #42
jaketodd said:
It's my opinion that way too much money is spent on "science." A lot of the time, tons of money is spent on complicated operations and research that yield very little actual advances. That's the gist here.
So in a world of ~8000000000 people, supporting a couple of 1000 string theorists is excessive?
 
  • #43
Frabjous said:
So in a world of ~8000000000 people, supporting a couple of 1000 string theorists is excessive?
I think there are times in life when it's time to call it quits, in many areas.
And it's not a purely monetary subject. Convoluted, over-complicated, confusing, charlatan theories exist in physics and all areas. And they just confuse people and waste time.
 
  • Like
  • Skeptical
Likes ohwilleke and Motore
  • #44
jaketodd said:
It's my opinion that way too much money is spent on "science." A lot of the time, tons of money is spent on complicated operations and research that yield very little actual advances.
First, you are shifting your ground. You originally said this was pursuing "theories that should be abandoned." But you couldn't give any examples. This is reinforcing my conclusion that you just Made It Up. You will not go far on PF if you insist on just Making Things Up.

Second, how much is too much? How much do you think should be spent on science? Or as you say, with scare quotes, 'science'. 10% of GDP? 5%? If you think it is too much, tell us what it should be, and defend your number.

Finally, using the World Wide Web and devices using transistors and ICs manufactured using UV lithography to complain about a lack of benefits of science...excuse me...'science'...is, well hilarious.
 
  • #45
jaketodd said:
I think there are times in life when it's time to call it quits, in many areas.
And it's not a purely monetary subject. Convoluted, over-complicated, confusing, charlatan theories exist in physics and all areas. And they just confuse people and waste time.
String theory is not a charlatan theory. It may prove to be wrong or unverifiable, but that is completely different. The resistance to string theory is arising from the physics community itself, so the idea that it will go in perpetuity “as is” is naive and a waste of our time. Most research areas do not die, they go fallow.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Motore
  • #46
Vanadium 50 said:
First, you are shifting your ground. You originally said this was pursuing "theories that should be abandoned." But you couldn't give any examples. This is reinforcing my conclusion that you just Made It Up. You will not go far on PF if you insist on just Making Things Up.

Second, how much is too much? How much do you think should be spent on science? Or as you say, with scare quotes, 'science'. 10% of GDP? 5%? If you think it is too much, tell us what it should be, and defend your number.

Finally, using the World Wide Web and devices using transistors and ICs manufactured using UV lithography to complain about a lack of benefits of science...excuse me...'science'...is, well hilarious.
You're trying to put words in my mouth, and are just plain rude.
 
  • #47
Which words?
 
  • #48
jaketodd said:
Convoluted, over-complicated, confusing, charlatan theories exist in physics and all areas.

Since you are not a physicists, what are the grounds you are basing this opinion on? What theories you have in mind? You surely don't know that much about string "theories" to say such things.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
Back
Top