And bad. You have said some things to the effect that string theory is probably a load of bollocks. If that is a fair assessment of your position, I agree. As far as I can tell, the bait for this pursuit is the intuition that fundamental particles might all be described as modes of vibration on 'strings'. Well, yes, it may well turn out that it is possible to describe the behaviour of particles thus; part of me thinks it would be possible to mathematically describe the universe in terms of elemental pork scratchings. Hypothetical entities can be given any qualities necessary to save the phenomenon.
The problem I have with String Theory is not that it isn't useful or it doesn't have real world applications, because I can assure you it does although not as it pertains to a ToE but that they tend to call it a theory at all kinda is insulting to people who have done experiments. This seems wrong headed to me, and String Theory seems to be gradually fading away as time goes by. So at least we know "put up or shut up" still holds in science.
"String theorists don't do experiments they just do excuses."
Richard P Feynman.
I don't think you mean this. What was he doing that had been going on for years?
Formalising a system of doing science?
Why what do you think he did, invent Pong for Atari?
By your own admission, you haven't read a lot of philosophy. Much as I love a lot of the people in this little world, do you think you could derive an accurate picture of scientists based on the contributions to a science forum with a similar approach to moderation?
I've spent my entire life working with scientists more so in the last 10 years so I don't think it's a fair question.
I can give you my impression of philosophers from this forum if you'd like, but I don't think you'd like what I have to say about what seems to be the general population, at least from what I have seen so far. Suffice to say apt to be overly opinionated to the point of thinking they are an authority on things which they have no real idea about, apt to jump to conclusions without any real basis for them, judgemnetal,narcissistic, possessing of an overinflated opinion of their own merits and an under appreciation of anyone elses and hence somewhat pompous, would probably turn up somewhere in there.
To be honest I would say that is most students in general though, it's dangerous to have a little learning, alot not so dangerous.
I wouldn't say that was everyone by any means but as an impression I have gotten over the last 5 months of being here, I'd say it at least reflects manys attitude if not mosts. Mind you judging people based on their internet persona is pretty useless although some numpties seem to think they can, they are fooling themselves of course.
Suffice to say my point still stands, I doubt most philosophers have even met many scientists, let alone are in any position to have an opinion on what scientists are like, I get the same impression about their ideas about how science works, and various other things too, that they have a sort of cobbled together internet philosophy of science and scientists, and almost no practical knowledge of actual science or actual scientists. But then it is philosophy, mind you I hope anyone who is studying philosophy of science has at least spent time in the real world, because otherwise you are going to be awfully incomplete in your views. Not that I think you have to have walked the walk in philosophy necessarilly, especially if you don't intend to study science at any point or do anything remotely concerned with it. It would be nice to see people relate something a little more anecdotal than erudite sometimes though, because alot of what I hear doesn't really gel with anything I have experienced in my career. So don't be offended if I take some people's opinion with a pinch of salt, particularly people who seem to be parrotting a sort of internet meme.
