But without looking at the direct rules of the system, this is the best you can do.
It’s not like you can just open the source code of the universe. You observe and make a theory that explains the observations, then the theory holds at least until a new observation contradicts the theory.
Is the current theory wrong? Maybe. But everything can be wrong and the world is always welcome to hear a new theory that completely explains all current observations.
But to just say a theory is wrong without providing a completely explained new one adds nothing.
For instance, our observations imply both general relativity and quantum field theory are necessary to model various aspects of the world. That’s an example of a Y. The only known X that’s ever been discovered that can encompass all aspects of that Y at all energy levels is string theory. Yet we are rightly careful to assume string theory is correct and enshrine it into the core body of scientific consensus. That does not mean we cannot or should not investigate it or even theory build on top of it, but it does mean we should refrain from assuming it must be true just because nobody can find anything better.
The vast majority of science is not disproving a theory but adding nuance to it. Newtonian physics wasn't disproven by quantum physics, but quantum physics showed that Newtonian physics has limitations as a model. It's not unreasonable to assume our best model is true until there is a reasonable amount of data to the contrary.
As others have said, your point adds little to the conversation until you bring good data to the argument.
Suggesting that we avoid possible dogma has intrinsic value. Let us step back and consider the fact that the combination of general relativity and the Standard Model already cannot explain our most basic cosmological observations. We cannot explain the stability of even our own galaxy based on current models. This situation clearly calls for some basic caution before we enshrine possible unproven explanations into humanity’s view of the universe. There’s a lot of evidence, both long established and newly growing, which shows that our models can’t consistently explain many of the basic things we see around us when we look up at the sky.
Your original point says very little. Yes, science acknowledges that you can never 100% say "X causes Y". Science is about getting closer and closer to that 100% with better models and better data while acknowledging it's impossible to get there completely. That's why people are saying your point is a nothing-burger. It's stating the obvious based on a strawman position.
What I wrote needed to be said, despite evidently containing very little interesting content, precisely because of how severely it provokes certain people who claim not to even disagree with it. The degree of the provocation proves the value of the statement.
>What I wrote needed to be said
There are apparently plenty of people who disagree (myself included) based on the comments. I think the reaction you're getting is because it's not a particularly fruitful comment because it adds nothing to the conversation, while being veiled as a profound statement.
>The degree of the provocation proves the value of the statement.
Except the response isn't a response to the claim, it's in response to the absence of one. If a researcher publishes some incomprehensible word-salad and lots of people write to the editor saying it's a worthless article, it doesn't somehow translate value to the original work. I think what you're experiencing is people being protective of HN in terms of having meaningful debate and what you said isn't particularly meaningful despite the wordsmithing.
As of the writing of this comment, every single comment I wrote here was upvoted. So, no. I can’t control the future, but what you wrote here was absolutely false when you wrote it.
> There are apparently plenty of people who disagree (myself included) based on the comments.
And that’s great — that means it’s thought provoking enough to generate debate with complex views on both sides. In other words, yet again proving the value of the statement.
Again, people pushing back doesn’t mean you’re fostering fruitful debate anymore than flat-earthers are generating debate “with complex views.”
Please point to where I first used forum upvotes as a useful metric.
The point of science isn't to punk the researchers. So no, what you wrote didn't need to be said.
As I (and others) have repeatedly pointed out, our models are wrong. We know they are wrong. What they are is less wrong than previous models. That doesn't make them "right" or "dogma." Rather it makes them the model that currently provides the best explanation for observed reality.
That neither requires or suggests that research/investigation into modifications of our current models and/or into completely different models is unseemly or inappropriate.
What I (and presumably others, as they've expressed similar thoughts) require, if you want me to accept modified/brand new theories/models is, at a minimum, a logic-based argument as to why a modified/new model describes the universe more completely/accurately than current models. Assuming you can convince me that it's plausible, the next step is to present observational data that supports your logically argued hypothesis -- and that such data is described by your model/theory more completely/accurately than other models. I.e., that your theory/model is less wrong than our extant models which are also wrong, but less wrong than previous models/theories.
And if you can't present such data (e.g., with M-Theory[0]), then it's not science, it's just math, philosophy and/or metaphysics.
That's not to say math/philosophy/metaphysics aren't useful. They absolutely are. However, without data (or the means to collect such data), it's impossible to falsify[1] such hypotheses and, as such, aren't science.
This is a great heuristic to practice often. I just told my wife she looks fat in her new dress, and the degree of her provocation proves the value of my statement.
Saying “the sky is up” and having people respond by telling you that is a trivial point shouldn’t be conflated with fostering a meaningful dialog.
He is making an epistemic argument, and epistemology is a part of proper science, though not of scientism, which is what you are bringing.
Binary is not the only form of logic available, but it is the most popular in discussions of the unknown.
> Your original point says very little.
You are literally mixing up subjective and objective.
> Yes, science acknowledges that you can never 100% say "X causes Y".
Careful though: science also does the opposite. Do you know why? Because science is composed of scientists, and scientists are Humans, and Humans are famously unable to distinguish between facts and their opinion of what is a fact. In fact, doing so is almost always inappropriate, and socially punished.
> Science is about...
It may intend to aspire to that, but what it is, is what it is. And what that is, comprehensively, is unknown, because it is unknowable. But we do know portions of what it is: there's the part you said, but there is also deceit, hyperbole, delusion, etc...again, because it is composed of Humans, and this is how Humans are. In my experience, all Humans oppose extreme correctness, I have never met a single one who does not.
I do not expect you can be persuaded you are not 100% in the right so I will not try.
And I'll help you: I acknowledge there is plenty of room for error on my behalf. I also acknowledge there is probably plenty of value in things that can't be measured by science, but I'm not sure they belong in the topic of physics or cosmology. However, I don't think the wordsmithing is the way to illuminate error in the context of this discussion. It seems to fall into the realm of modern philosophy that is more about arguing words in the vein of trying to be smart, instead of good.
This is what I like to hear!
I propose that the ability to apply this recursively is an extremely rare, arguably ~superhuman skill.
This is not correct; string theory is not the only candidate we have for a theory of quantum gravity.
I said it’s the only theory of gravity and everything else at all energy levels, and that’s true. In fact, you’ll notice I did not even use the term “quantum gravity” to avoid the exact confusion you fell into anyway.
A good scientist will tell you that we don't assume it is truth. Instead, it is the closest thing to truth we can get at this time, but we are always seek better. But like a limit, we can only ever approach closer and never arrive at truth. As the other poster mentioned, we don't have a way to open up the source code of the universe.
Some scientists get a bit too attached to theories and can move them from "closest we currently have to truth" to "truth", but I think the bigger issue is that the non-scientists involve in transmitting science too often present it as truth, instead of the best approximation we currently have. Often because fake confidence beats out measured modesty, and the one claiming to have truth is more convincing than the one saying we can't know truth and only better approximate it.
A scientist will say science is true for the sake of simplifying the philosophy of science to those unfamiliar with it, but any scientist who thinks they have captured objective truth has lost the philosophical foundations of science.
It certainly does. You don't have to know how something works to be able to know how it doesn't work. And there is value in knowing how something doesn't work, even if you don't know how it works.
To me it seems like you're arguing that it was a bad idea to build on the assumption of Newton's theory of gravity because eventually it would be replaced by Einstein's theories of relativity. Which is obviously not sensible, since Einstein's theories were in part the result of trying to explain inaccurate predictions made by building on Newton's theory.
If the only option for finding out better evidence for or against X is by building those models and watching them either keep matching observations or finding a contradiction that can lead to the downfall of X as the suspect, then it is if you want to progress science any further.
Maybe there is another area that will give results faster, but much of the easy and fast science has already been science. And if someone finds a better option we missed, which does happen from time to time, add some rigor to it, verify it with testing, and they'll likely have themselves a Nobel prize.
(As far as any other HN reader could ever perceive)
It’s just a fact of reality that no one else on HN can verify with certainty whether or not you are a genuine, bonafide, human being, especially online.
Everyone who is engaging with you is just assuming you are.
If you mean ‘nilkn’, the presumably human created HN account ostensibly still operated by that same sole human being, writing their own thoughts down and not on behalf of other entities, then thanks for providing an excellent demonstration.