• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is string theory science?

I

imported_electron

Senior member
Cause right now string theory can neither be proven nor disproven. Yet it is taught at the University level as a science course. But people are up in arms over intelligent design shouting that it is not science because it's not able to be disproven.
 
Don't compare a logical theory like string theory to the lunacy of "intelligent design."

Intelligent design is not considered science not because it cannot be proven, but because it's just plain stupid and primitive.
 
Originally posted by: electron
Cause right now string theory can neither be proven nor disproven. Yet it is taught at the University level as a science course. But people are up in arms over intelligent design shouting that it is not science because it's not able to be disproven.
Click to expand...

String theory is able to be disproven, and there are experiments that are being done that support the theory with their results.

Intelligent design says "crap is complex, god mustve done it".
 
String theory is a theory based on scientific method. It also encorages logical paterns of thought which is why it is being taught. Furthermore its a decent way to get grant money for the math dept.
 
Just because string theory cannot be proven or disproven right now, does not mean it cannot be proven or disproven in general.

It's a theory that can and will be validated or discredited eventually. You cannot say the same about intelligent design.
 
The people that believe the string theory aren't full of ****** like the people that believe intelligent design.
 
Originally posted by: Zolty
String theory is a theory based on scientific method. It also encorages logical paterns of thought which is why it is being taught. Furthermore its a decent way to get grant money for the math dept.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: JLGatsby
Don't compare a logical theory like string theory to the lunacy of "intelligent design."

Intelligent design is not considered science not because it cannot be proven, but because it's just plain stupid and primitive.
Click to expand...

QFI

(Quoted For Idiocy)
 
I think...

String theory is still a theory that scientists will try hard to prove or disprove.
At its fundamentals, it is a theory based on the extrapolation of current thought, logic and scientific thinking.

ID on the other hand, is a bunch of people who can't explain why the world works the way it does and say that someone must have therefore ordained it thus. This is not based on any logic, previous observations or any form of intelligent thinking. And accepting ID for what it's worth implies that had this theory caught on back in the 1600s, we would still think that air and earth were elements. After all, we don't understand it, so someone created it like so, and so it must be.

Though I am an atheist, I understand why some people might want to push for ID to be taught in school. However, it doesn't mean you are right. How would this group of people like it if we made them learn islam by saying that is an alternative ID?
 
There's a fairly good interview with Peter Woit (physicist at Columbia U) on this topic in this month's Discover magazine. It's his position that "string theory" is not yet technically a theory because "string theory" in its current form does not make any predictions or at least nobody knows how to use it to make a prediction that can be tested.

"At this point no one has a plausible idea about how to ever make a prediction out of this, or how to use this in order to really explain anything about the world...String theorists are certainly using mathematics, and they are building models and writing down equations for them, but the models they are working with just aren't connected to the real world. There isn't even any plausible way you could imagine that they are going to be able to use these models to explain some experiment we are seeing..."

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top