it looks like they’re working on it in order to salvage this new way of doing science from entering the religious/mythology/theology dept.

Hm. Well, I’m not sure what you mean there – might be the same thing:

My understanding is the lack of empirical evidence supporting certain more “far out” theories, some of which may never be provable through experiment.

What kind of theories are they?

Are they scientific theories?

What kind? How do we describe them accurately in order to distinguish unverifiable theory from verifiable theory?

I believe this is the intent.

There was lack of philosophical basis behind this new type of scientific theory – the likely untestable ones – but it looks like they’re working on it in order to salvage this new way of doing science from entering the religious/mythology/theology dept.

==

In short,
at present, mathematically provable isn’t a substitute for scientifically provable.

It’s currently more equatable to mythology supported by mathematical proofs.

If it’s going to be considered legitimate science, something has to change and it’s likely naming “what kind of theory is this?” properly will do so, in order to distinguish it from throwing up a ball and catching it 100 times.

=
$
Lots of $ in this stuff.

It’s popular with the public. We LOVE alternate universes. How many TV Science shows, science promoters, the BBC, all involved in promoting Science utilizing the LEAST scientific of all the theories… engaging our imagination, getting people interested in Science, etc.

But…
..it’s not really Science.

Not really. It’s mathematics combined with fascinating ideas that we can’t verify.

The value in it is tremendous – LITERAL value. Money value. If they lose this part of Science as being called “Science”, a lot goes away.

People don’t want to think of Science as trudging through swamps looking through microscopes at new bacteria.

People don’t want to think of stinky chemistry labs.

We want the way-out-there stuff. That’s why Philosophy enters in: it gives what Science is currently missing: a justification for a novel methodology. It’s a justification the current philosophy of Science CAN’T do but with discussion, it will.
==

 

Well, I think what they’re trying to do is the opposite:

Focus on unfalsifiable claims and grant them validity by a novel wording of Theory that’s philosophically justifiable.

==

Science was once Natural Philosophy. It has to return to its roots to get a redefinition so it can progress to another level of operation.

===

I got it bookmarked. I scanned the comments section to get a feel for it. Looks like it’s got all the science popularizers and superstars all in one place.

I call ‘em the Science Bishops smile emoticon

==

Oh I know – their differences make them funny to watch. I’ve seen a few of them together before and the minutia they argue over is funny as hell. But they’re generally same-page about the Bulk.. pun intended tongue emoticon

==

Oh I know – their differences make them funny to watch. I’ve seen a few of them together before and the minutia they argue over is funny as hell. But they’re generally same-page about the Bulk.. pun intended tongue emoticon

==

I noticed increasing consistency on the Science channel about 3 years ago. It was like a weird convergence on certain things that before they would’ve separated on. I also noticed some commenters vanish from sight and others get more focus. [I remember when Krauss was just an occasional].

Anyway, after a while, I got tired of the same 11-12 faces so I stopped watching the channel. But I was obsessed with it for a few years before that.
==

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


eight − 3 =

Leave a Reply