The misuse of science by William Lane Craig and othe Christian apologists.

[Sea of red]

Yes, you certainly failed. I asked you directly several times the exact same question, and in no uncertain terms. Rather than give an honest answer you danced around the topic, and then acted like I was the childish one for calling you on it. You're a dishonest punk.

You really do need to examine yourself there, Adrift. You've gotten to where you're as stubborn as some of the posters you like to criticize. Maybe shunny gives you a hard time but that's no reason to try and drag other people into these little issues you have with him. I simply pointed out how falsification works in cosmology and explained it to you, but that just wasn't enough for you. It's pretty obvious you were only interested in using me to humiliate shunny because you hate the guy - which why you kept putting out bait over and over in different ways. It's pretty sad that you've sunk that low.

Maybe next time, don't discuss something you're not very well read on with a poster you can't stomach.

PS: the mods reversed those infractions you keep bringing up.

[Sea of red]

Right but I don't think that you answered my question...

I am not asking if you agree with the hypothesis.

I am asking if it is falsifiable.

Difficult to say.

If you're asking if it's falsifiable that our universe is cyclic or not then I would say yes, those theories can be falsified. Other ideas are more tricky.

[Adrift]

You really do need to examine yourself there, Adrift. You've gotten to where you're as stubborn as some of the posters you like to criticize. Maybe shunny gives you a hard time but that's no reason to try and drag other people into these little issues you have with him. I simply pointed out how falsification works in cosmology and explained it to you, but that just wasn't enough for you. It's pretty obvious you were only interested in using me to humiliate shunny because you hate the guy - which why you kept putting out bait over and over in different ways. It's pretty sad that you've sunk that low.

Maybe next time, don't discuss something you're not very well read on with a poster you can't stomach.

PS: the mods reversed those infractions you keep bringing up.

Or, you know, I just call it as I see. Musta hit a nerve if you felt the need to vent again on the same post 12 hours later.

[Sea of red]

Or, you know, I just call it as I see. Musta hit a nerve if you felt the need to vent again on the same post 12 hours later.

Or, maybe you really are just wrong on this.

I just don't understand why you think I'm defending shunny. It has nothing to do with him - I don't know him at all.

[element771]

Difficult to say.

Why?

[Kbertsche]

Sure, but those ideas can always be overturned by new evidence. That is part of the deal. I agree in spirit that theories of early cosmology and quantum gravity are not settled science. That said, these theories do make predictions on what should be observed providing they are true. Not being able to conduct the experiments right now is not an argument for them being 'unscientific'. You may not like the theories but harping on them as not being science is just cheap thinking.

Yes, of course. If a theory is scientifically testable in principle, it counts as a scientific theory, even if the test cannot be done at the present time.

So, if you believe that string theory and the concept of multiverses are scientific theories, can you please explain how they could be tested or falsified in principle?

[Sea of red]

Yes, of course. If a theory is scientifically testable in principle, it counts as a scientific theory, even if the test cannot be done at the present time.

So, if you believe that string theory and the concept of multiverses are scientific theories, can you please explain how they could be tested or falsified in principle?

Think I've answered this before.

I'm no expert on either. What I do know is that SUSY is an integral part of string theory. If SUSY was falsified then string theory would pretty much be over. OTHO: if you can probe below the Planck length and show elementary particles are not made up of strings, that would definitely falsify the theory. If you want to falsify multiverse scenarios , you would have to go about falsifying theories that predict them such as chaotic inflation.

[Sea of red]

Why?

You need to expand on exactly what it is you want me to answer.

[Kbertsche]

Here's an idea: if you think that predictions of other universes are not science then I suggest you email Leonard Susskind, Steven Weinberg, Alan Guth, Sean Carroll, Edward Witten, Juan Maldecena, Martin Reese, Andrie Linde, Joe Polchinski, Stephen Hawking, and their beloved Alex Velinkin to tell these men so. Go ahead. Tell them all of their work 'isn't science' and can't be falsified. Then tell them about how falsification works in theoretical physics.

PLEASE post the responses if they give you the time of day.

From the Wikipedia article on "multiverse":

Source: wikipedia

Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry.[3] Concerns have been raised about whether attempts to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of fundamental physics.[4] Some have argued that the multiverse is a philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be falsified. The ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment has always been part of the accepted scientific method.[5] Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if the theory provides for all possible outcomes.[6]

© Copyright Original Source

If indeed the multiverse cannot be tested or falsified in principle, then indeed it is not science, according to the requirement that scientific theories must be testable and falsifiable.

Earlier in this thread I recommended an excellent paper by Helen Quinn, where she says:

Note her clarity: she claims that the multiverse is, in principle, untestable and unfalsifiable. She claims that it is actually a form of metaphysics.

And some more from the Wikipedia article:

Source: wikipedia

Proponents of one of the multiverse hypotheses include Stephen Hawking,[16] Brian Greene,[17][18] Max Tegmark,[19] Alan Guth,[20] Andrei Linde,[21] Michio Kaku,[22] David Deutsch,[23] Leonard Susskind,[24] Alexander Vilenkin,[25] Yasunori Nomura,[26] Raj Pathria,[27] Laura Mersini-Houghton,[28][29] Neil deGrasse Tyson,[30] and Sean Carroll.[31]

Scientists who are generally skeptical of the multiverse hypothesis include: Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg,[32] Nobel laureate David Gross,[33] Paul Steinhardt,[34] Neil Turok,[35] Viatcheslav Mukhanov,[36] Michael S. Turner,[37] Roger Penrose,[38] George Ellis,[39][40] Joe Silk,[41] Carlo Rovelli, [42] Adam Frank,[43] Marcelo Gleiser,[43] Jim Baggott,[44] and Paul Davies.[45]

© Copyright Original Source

[Sea of red]

From the Wikipedia article on "multiverse":

Source: wikipedia

Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry.[3] Concerns have been raised about whether attempts to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of fundamental physics.[4] Some have argued that the multiverse is a philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be falsified. The ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment has always been part of the accepted scientific method.[5] Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if the theory provides for all possible outcomes.[6]

© Copyright Original Source

If indeed the multiverse cannot be tested or falsified in principle, then indeed it is not science, according to the requirement that scientific theories must be testable and falsifiable.

Earlier in this thread I recommended an excellent paper by Helen Quinn, where she says:

Note her clarity: she claims that the multiverse is, in principle, untestable and unfalsifiable. She claims that it is actually a form of metaphysics.

And some more from the Wikipedia article:

Source: wikipedia

Proponents of one of the multiverse hypotheses include Stephen Hawking,[16] Brian Greene,[17][18] Max Tegmark,[19] Alan Guth,[20] Andrei Linde,[21] Michio Kaku,[22] David Deutsch,[23] Leonard Susskind,[24] Alexander Vilenkin,[25] Yasunori Nomura,[26] Raj Pathria,[27] Laura Mersini-Houghton,[28][29] Neil deGrasse Tyson,[30] and Sean Carroll.[31]

Scientists who are generally skeptical of the multiverse hypothesis include: Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg,[32] Nobel laureate David Gross,[33] Paul Steinhardt,[34] Neil Turok,[35] Viatcheslav Mukhanov,[36] Michael S. Turner,[37] Roger Penrose,[38] George Ellis,[39][40] Joe Silk,[41] Carlo Rovelli, [42] Adam Frank,[43] Marcelo Gleiser,[43] Jim Baggott,[44] and Paul Davies.[45]

© Copyright Original Source

Wiki? Lets get serious.

Below is a conversation between Lee Smolin and and Leonard Susskind (the founder of string theory) many years ago on the Edge. Smolin whom is critic of the anthropic principle, was arguing these exact points in his debate with Susskind, and was making a case for Popper falsification. Susskind argued with this was overkill in discussions on the anthropric principle and that falsification is a tricky thing - which was my point this whole time. It's a fairly length read but I think these quotes are interesting.

https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smo..._susskind.html

He further adds this very insightful wisdom.

That's exactly what's going on here. Some of the physicists, philosophers, and theologians that are critics of the anthropic landscape are not without their own agendas in this game - you are no exception in this respect. I'm starting to feel like falsification is becoming more of a slur against a conclusions in science that people dislike, rather than honest an criticism. Lots of ideas in science would have never been discovered with this mentality, and it's more of a dogmatism that produces no alternative theories.

PS: Paul Davies and Steven Weinberg accept the multiverse - I can provide quotes. That's why you should avoid Wiki like it's hot coal.

[Kbertsche]

I'm starting to feel like falsification is becoming more of a slur against a conclusions in science that people dislike, rather than honest an criticism.

No, falsifiability is simply a requirement for a theory to be scientific. If a theory is not falsifiable in principle, it's not science. It's this simple. Without testability and falsifiability, what distinguishes science from science fiction? From speculation?

Lots of ideas in science would have never been discovered with this mentality, and it's more of a dogmatism that produces no alternative theories.

I think you have it completely backwards here! It is the aspects of testability and falsifiability that lead to new discoveries. Experimental tests may validate a theory, and/or may disprove or constrain other theories. It is often these experimental tests which are the greatest impetus to drive theorists to patch up existing theories or create new ones.

[Sea of red]

No, falsifiability is simply a requirement for a theory to be scientific.

And the theories that predict other universes are falsifiable. Period. End of story.

If a theory is not falsifiable in principle, it's not science. It's this simple. Without testability and falsifiability, what distinguishes science from science fiction? From speculation?

Such as a deity that we will never be able to detect, and no theory predicts?

I think you have it completely backwards here! It is the aspects of testability and falsifiability that lead to new discoveries. Experimental tests may validate a theory, and/or may disprove or constrain other theories. It is often these experimental tests which are the greatest impetus to drive theorists to patch up existing theories or create new ones.

I agree with this but it's not the whole picture. Your argument boils down to our being unable to do the experiments to validate/falsify these theories today. Not having an experiment to falsify something immediately does not make it 'metaphysics' at all. It took over thirty years to discover all of the Quarks, forty years to see the Cosmic Microwave Background, and almost fifty to see the Higgs. When these phenomenon were first proposed there were no experiments on the drawing board to falsify them - we had to wait a long time. Heck, creationists make these same charges against evolutionary biology. It's an old card that's played too often.

[Kbertsche]

And the theories that predict other universes are falsifiable. Period. End of story.

No, this is not quite the end of the story. Yes, some theories that predict some forms of the multiverse may be falsifiable. But the existence of other universes is not testable or falsifiable, not even in principle. So even if other aspects of a theory which predicts multiverses can be verified, the untestability of other universes leaves that portion of the theory in doubt.

The untestability of the multiverse is almost universally accepted in the physics community; there is essentially no debate over it. The debate among theorists is whether we should eliminate the requirement of falsifiability and consider the multiverse to be physics, or keep the requirement and consider it to be metaphysics.

Or maybe you think you understand theoretical physics better than Helen Quinn does?

I agree with this but it's not the whole picture. Your argument boils down to our being unable to do the experiments to validate/falsify these theories today.

Absolutely not. You mischaracterize my argument. My argument is that if something is not falsifiable in principle, it is not science.

Not having an experiment to falsify something immediately does not make it 'metaphysics' at all. It took over thirty years to discover all of the Quarks, forty years to see the Cosmic Microwave Background, and almost fifty to see the Higgs. When these phenomenon were first proposed there were no experiments on the drawing board to falsify them - we had to wait a long time. Heck, creationists make these same charges against evolutionary biology. It's an old card that's played too often.

I completely agree, as I've said previously.

[JimL]

No, falsifiability is simply a requirement for a theory to be scientific. If a theory is not falsifiable in principle, it's not science. It's this simple. Without testability and falsifiability, what distinguishes science from science fiction? From speculation?


I think you have it completely backwards here! It is the aspects of testability and falsifiability that lead to new discoveries. Experimental tests may validate a theory, and/or may disprove or constrain other theories. It is often these experimental tests which are the greatest impetus to drive theorists to patch up existing theories or create new ones.

The many worlds hypotheses is unfalsifiable, but it is a direct result of science, i.e. of Schroedingers equation, whereas the god hypotheses, also unfalsifiable, is a direct result of nothing but our ignorance.

[robrecht]

No, this is not quite the end of the story. Yes, some theories that predict some forms of the multiverse may be falsifiable. But the existence of other universes is not testable or falsifiable, not even in principle. So even if other aspects of a theory which predicts multiverses can be verified, the untestability of other universes leaves that portion of the theory in doubt.

The untestability of the multiverse is almost universally accepted in the physics community; there is essentially no debate over it. The debate among theorists is whether we should eliminate the requirement of falsifiability and consider the multiverse to be physics, or keep the requirement and consider it to be metaphysics.

Or maybe you think you understand theoretical physics better than Helen Quinn does?

Absolutely not. You mischaracterize my argument. My argument is that if something is not falsifiable in principle, it is not science.

I completely agree, as I've said previously.

How does one distinguish between a theory that cannot be falsified in principle from one that we cannot see at present how it might be falsified but at some point in the future new discoveries might render it falsifiable and therefore in need of modification? Or would you say that this is always subject to change?