What should the standards for testing in science be?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Let me say first that the more testable a science is by a procedure that validates it, the more it is in accord with reality. That's part of my philosophy.

This lengthy article discusses current trends in testing which may lead to less reliance on that science due to the lowering of standards. This is moving away from what Karl Popper and others advocate:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... o-science/

PhilX

PS Wajid Aminu is the author of the article.

[socratus]

About philosophy. Book “Facing Up”, by Steven Weinberg.
=..
“I think few philosophers of science take it (discussing questions
about scientific knowledge) as part of their job description to help
scientists in their research. . . . . why this should be? Why should
the philosophy of science not be of more help to scientists? I raise
this question here not in order to attack the philosophy of science,
but because I think it is an interesting question – perhaps even
philosophically interesting,”
/ page 84 /
“ . . . it’s not the job of physicists or other scientists to define truth;
that is the job of philosophers. If they haven’t done that job, too bad
for them”
/ page 104 /
“My point is rather that no sense can be made of the notion of reality
as it has ordinarily functioned in the philosophy of science”
/page 205/
“Fortunately we need not allow philosophers to dictate how
philosophical arguments are to be applied in the history
of science, or in scientific research itself, . . . .”
/page 205/
“Certainly philosophers can do us a great service in their attempts
to clarify what we mean by truth and reality,”
/page 206/
=====…
We know that “truth” and “reality” mean in our everyday life
(for example we have no trouble to use these words in a supermarket).
But can we explain “truth” and “reality” in science / physics on
the logical “supermarket” level? Einstein, Rutherford, Bohr and
other physicists were sure that it is possible.
===…
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity
and confusion of things.”
/ Isaac Newton /
“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough”
/ Albert Einstein. /
"A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good."
/ Ernest Rutherford /
“It is often claimed that knowledge multiplies so rapidly that
nobody can follow it. I believe this is incorrect. At least
in science it is not true. The main purpose of science is simplicity
and as we understand more things, everything is becoming simpler.
This, of course, goes contrary to what everyone accepts.”
/ Edward Teller /
==..
It seems that philosophers haven’t done their job.
====…
Socratus
=.

[Skip]

There is a simple standard of testing anything:
Does it work?
A: I made this flying gizmo.
B: Let's see it fly.
A: Here you go!
B: That's some cool! How's it do that?

Now you can investigate why it flies. A launches into long explanation of materials, aerodynamics, gravity, propulsion, velocity, etc. Each and every principle can then be tested - materials replaced, quantities altered, ratios reversed, etc. to see whether the gizmo still flies.

If it doesn't fly, B needn't hang around and listen to excuses about how the gizmo will only fly if all the children really, really believe, or whatever. It's up to A to prove his claim.

[socratus]

There is a simple standard of testing anything:
Does it work?
A: I made this flying gizmo.
B: Let's see it fly.
A: Here you go!
B: That's some cool! How's it do that?

Now you can investigate why it flies. A launches into long explanation of materials,
aerodynamics, gravity, propulsion, velocity, etc. Each and every principle can then be tested -
materials replaced, quantities altered, ratios reversed, etc. to see whether the gizmo still flies.

If it doesn't fly, B needn't hang around and listen to excuses about how the gizmo will only fly
if all the children really, really believe, or whatever. It's up to A to prove his claim.

Your “flying gizmo ” belongs to the Newton’s classical world.
In the Planck’s quantum world the situation is different.
===..

[Skip]

No it's not. We don't live in a different world, just because some put forth exotic theories.
"Does it work?" may take on some specialized forms, the manifestations of which are known by a minority,

- for example, it can mean : "Is the math correct?" or "Do the equations conform?"
- or it can mean - "Are the instruments showing accurate reading? Are they being read and recorded accurately?"
Or it can mean - "Does the model illustrate the hypothesis?"

but it must always mean - "Is the theory consistent with present observations?" and then "Are the derived predictions confirmed by subsequent observations?" That's still the standard.

[Obvious Leo]

You've got it, skip. We must always maintain the distinction between reality and the models we devise to describe it. Physicists have granted themselves the authority to ontologise their toolkit but philosophers must we wary of such logical fallacies. If a physicist devises models which define a universe which makes no fucking sense he can simply conclude that we live in a universe which makes no fucking sense because making sense is not the physicist's core business. His job is to make bombs for the military and IPads for the hoi polloi.

[Skip]

The head-shrinking crowd have a familiar hierarchy :" Neurotics build castles in the air; psychotics move in; psychiatrists collect the rent. "
Maybe physicists have a similar analogy.

Whatever happens or doesn't happen in the depth of /time/space/matter/ - we can't actually think or live in any but the real world. That's the only world we can interact with.

[socratus]

If a physicist devises models which define a universe which makes
no fucking sense he can simply conclude that we live in a universe
which makes no fucking sense because making sense is not
the physicist's core business.
His job is to make bombs for the military and IPads for the hoi polloi.

String model.
Where did string-particle come from: from guitar or from violin?
===…

[socratus]

The head-shrinking crowd have a familiar hierarchy :
" Neurotics build castles in the air; psychotics move in; psychiatrists collect the rent. "
Maybe physicists have a similar analogy.
Whatever happens or doesn't happen in the depth of /time/space/matter/

" Physicists build philosophical castles in the air;
philosophers move in; government pay the rent. "
It is happened in our earthly space/time//matter/
===…

[Obvious Leo]

If a physicist devises models which define a universe which makes
no fucking sense he can simply conclude that we live in a universe
which makes no fucking sense because making sense is not
the physicist's core business.
His job is to make bombs for the military and IPads for the hoi polloi.

String model.
Where did string-particle come from: from guitar or from violin?
===…

Finally it seems that after forty years of trying to build this particular castle in the air the geeks have finally woken up to discover that they've been pleasuring themselves with no prospect of a climax. The strings will go the way of phlogiston and nobody will mourn their passing. We can only hope that that the uncaused event will vanish into oblivion in their wake.