Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
The idea that millions are being spent on the multiverse hypothesis is frankly hilarious. Speculating on such ideas is probably the cheapest hobby there is.
I challenge you:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudoscience wth CERTAINTY
- Thread starter devhdb
- Start date
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
Strange question as falsifiability is not one of Hansson & Boudry's criteria.Yes, I want to comment, thanks.
Let's take the multiverse hypothesis, where there are a hypothetical group of multiple universes.
Together, these universes comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, information, and the physical laws and constants that describe them and the different universes within the multiverse are called "parallel universes", "other universes", or "alternate universes".
Millions of dollars are granted by governments worldwide to fund hypothesis such as the multiverse.
Is that hypothesis falsifiable? If so, how?
According to Hansson & Boudry, is the multiverse hypothesis...
...Science or Pseudoscience?
[qimg]https://media1.tenor.com/images/89f8c1e3d2fa4d0081e6af67ff5a78d4/tenor.gif[/qimg]
I can answer the "multiverse hypothesis .... science or pseudoscience?" question - I don't know.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
It's neither, really. It's a mathematical solution to some complicated equations. Quantum mechanics is the most reliable physical theory we have, but it returns some results that are frankly quite baffling, and cosmologists have been trying to figure out some ways to make it make sense. The Multiverse hypothesis has been proposed as a possible solution to a particular quantum mechanical conundrum. Mathematically, it doesn't appear to contain any outright contradictions, and it resolves several aspects in an elegant manner. Is it science? Not really. But nor is it pseudoscience. But nothing is forcing it to be one or the other.
David Mo
Philosopher
This is the point.
Homeopathy is not presented as an unproven hypothesis but as a truly efficient medical practice. Without any scientific confirmation, of course.
Second point: How long can an unproven theory be maintained in science?
When a scientific hypothesis remains unverified for a century or less, the scientific community puts it aside.
How long does homeopathy exist -without verification? Since 1805. You can count.
David Mo
Philosopher
I am interested - like other people in this forum - in how you establish that calculation. I find it remarkably imprecise.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
That is, in fact, the question whose investigation those grants, if they exist, might be funding. It's one of the early stages of the scientific process: once you have a theory that explains a set of phenomena, try to find out what hypothetical observations would invalidate that theory, then find out whether those observations can be made.
Science. Pseudoscience wouldn't require the grant money, because the multiverse theory would simply be declared true however much evidence piled up against it, just like homeopathy.
Dave
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
If millions of people were shelling out hard cash for medical treatments (or any other product) whose claim for efficacy assumed the truth of the multiverse hypothesis, despite there being a mountain of objective evidence that proved the hypothesis false, it might be a valid comparison. But there aren't, so it isn't.
"What was a metaphysical idea yesterday [Homeopathy, Feng Shui, Acupuncture, Bach flower remedies, Parapsychology, Neuro-linguistic programming, the Multiverse, the String Theory framework...] can become a testable scientific theory tomorrow: and this happens FREQUENTLY."
Karl Popper, 1974.
Karl Popper, 1974.
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
If the multiverse hypothesis predicted that a particular form of treatment would cure a particular disease, then that might begin to make the hypothesis testable.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
"What was a metaphysical idea yesterday [the Multiverse, the String Theory framework, Homeopathy, Feng Shui, Acupuncture...] can become a testable scientific theory tomorrow: and this happens FREQUENTLY."
Karl Popper, 1974.
Yes, things can move from one category to another as conditions change. But that doesn’t mean that nothing can ever be categorised.
And making testable predictions doesn’t necessarily prevent something being pseudoscience. For example, homeopathy is firmly within the pseudoscience category because its testable predictions have been refuted by the results of controlled trials, while it continues to be claimed to be effective.
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
"What was a metaphysical idea yesterday [the Multiverse, the String Theory framework, Homeopathy, Feng Shui, Acupuncture...] can become a testable scientific theory tomorrow: and this happens FREQUENTLY."
Karl Popper, 1974.
Eye roll indeed. This is a pathetic response that lacks any engagement with the ideas in this thread or Popper for that matter. Reminds me of someone quote mining Darwin’s Origins.
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
"What was a metaphysical idea yesterday [Homeopathy, Feng Shui, Acupuncture, Bach flower remedies, Parapsychology, Neuro-linguistic programming, the Multiverse, the String Theory framework...] can become a testable scientific theory tomorrow: and this happens FREQUENTLY."
Karl Popper, 1974.
Homeopathy is already testable. It's been tested. Exhaustively. It doesn't work.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
"What was a metaphysical idea yesterday [Homeopathy, Feng Shui, Acupuncture, Bach flower remedies, Parapsychology, Neuro-linguistic programming, the Multiverse, the String Theory framework...] can become a testable scientific theory tomorrow: and this happens FREQUENTLY."
Karl Popper, 1974.
"Good tests kill flawed theories [Homeopathy, Feng Shui, Acupuncture, Back flower remedies, Parapsychology, Neuro-linguistic programming]; we remain alive to guess again. [the Multiverse, the String Theory framework...]".
Karl Popper, quoted in 2011.
You see how easy it is to edit somebody else's quote to make it look like it supports your position? If that's your best argument, you've already lost.
Dave
Many members of the mainstream scientific community react with extreme
hostility when presented with certain claims. This can be seen in their
emotional responses to current controversies such as UFO abductions, Cold
Fusion, cryptozoology, psi, and numerous others. The scientists react
not with pragmatism and a wish to get to the bottom of things, but
instead with the same tactics religious groups use to suppress heretics:
hostile emotional attacks, circular reasoning, dehumanizing of the
'enemy', extreme closed-mindedness, intellectually dishonest reasoning,
underhanded debating tactics, negative gossip, and all manner of
name-calling and character assassination.
Two can play at that game! Therefore, I call their behavior
"Pathological Skepticism", a term I base upon skeptics' assertion that
various unacceptable ideas are "Pathological Science." Below is a list
of the symptoms of pathological skepticism I have encountered, and
examples of the irrational reasoning they tend to produce.
For full list see: http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt
Main page: CLOSEMINDED SCIENCE: Examining the negative aspects of the social dynamics of science.
"Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt."
Carl Sagan
hostility when presented with certain claims. This can be seen in their
emotional responses to current controversies such as UFO abductions, Cold
Fusion, cryptozoology, psi, and numerous others. The scientists react
not with pragmatism and a wish to get to the bottom of things, but
instead with the same tactics religious groups use to suppress heretics:
hostile emotional attacks, circular reasoning, dehumanizing of the
'enemy', extreme closed-mindedness, intellectually dishonest reasoning,
underhanded debating tactics, negative gossip, and all manner of
name-calling and character assassination.
Two can play at that game! Therefore, I call their behavior
"Pathological Skepticism", a term I base upon skeptics' assertion that
various unacceptable ideas are "Pathological Science." Below is a list
of the symptoms of pathological skepticism I have encountered, and
examples of the irrational reasoning they tend to produce.
For full list see: http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt
Main page: CLOSEMINDED SCIENCE: Examining the negative aspects of the social dynamics of science.
"Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt."
Carl Sagan
Last edited:
Wudang
BOFH
"What was a metaphysical idea yesterday [Homeopathy, Feng Shui, Acupuncture, Bach flower remedies, Parapsychology, Neuro-linguistic programming, the Multiverse, the String Theory framework...] can become a testable scientific theory tomorrow: and this happens FREQUENTLY."
Karl Popper, 1974.
Yes. And another distinguishing feature of pseudoscience is, when testable hypotheses are formulated and are tested is the theory revised in light of the results of these tests? In the case of homeopathy the answer is a resounding no.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Scientists did initially react to the claims of homeopaths with pragmatism and a wish to get to the bottom of things, that's why they went to the trouble of rigorously testing those claims. Having conclusively proved them false, it's completely understandable that they react to those who persist in making them with hostility. Pathological belief is what is the actual problem here.
Wudang
BOFH
Completely untrue. When Fleischmann and Pons first made their claim many many scientists tried to replicate it as quickly as possible. In fact this is one of the stories that Bob Park uses in his book "Voodoo Science" to show how people can slip from science into psudeoscience. It's a very interesting read.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
