PZ has a great article about what remains to be done amidst the morning-after hangover of the Dover decision. (I’ll even forgive him for calling us nerds; backstory at Majikthise.) Upshot: scientists need to be outspoken, convincing, and relentless in simultaneously persuading and educating the public. We can’t take our own success for granted; there are anti-scientific forces out there who are highly paid and highly skilled, and a large segment of the public who want to know the truth but are receiving mixed signals.
But, if you just want to have a laugh, you could do worse than checking up on Michael Behe’s predictions.
I simply don’t understand a string theorist’s delight in a court decision declaring ID unscientific because it is untestable and unfalsifiable. Given the “fecundity” of the “theory’s” inevitable evolution (which the likes of Witten “hopes isn’t true”, though he has no plausible argument against it) the “string theory landscape”, and its apparent ability to yield whatever constants of nature, etc. one likes (except the ones we actually observe, of course), why is this a cause for joy among the quantum gravity community? Its leading candidate is, by the admission of some of its top proponents, quite possibly completely untestable and unfalsifiable, has been for 30 years, and shows no sign of yielding anything by way of new experimentally testable insights or predictions that could demonstrate the “theory” is wrong.
As a career scientist who values experiment, I find this smug hypocrisy on the part of practitioners of a branch of “modal realism” philosophy offensive. I will submit my preference that string theorists keep such sanctimonious triumphalism to themselves until they produce something with even a tiny fraction of the scientific utility of neo-Darwininan evolution.
Regards,
Dumb Biologist
I will submit my preference that string theorists keep such sanctimonious triumphalism to themselves until they produce something with even a tiny fraction of the scientific utility of neo-Darwininan evolution.
Huh?
So people who haven’t produced experimental predictions aren’t allowed to be happy that an unscientific theory isn’t being taught in high school? What a strange idea.
Well, if they would kindly admit they’re on no more solid footing than the folks they’re deriding, instead of promoting the idea that their branch of research remotely resembles the science Judge Jones seeks to protect, I’d have no problem whatsoever. Quite a number of theologians and philosphers will rightly applaud this decision, but they don’t masquerade as scientists.
I will not try to defy nature and stand in the way of the Great Attractor Mechanism. However, just wanted to wish everyone happy holidays, so there.
Sean,
This NPR commentary nearly made my head explode on my commute yesterday. Very little of it squares at all with my recollection of the history of the big bang and the cosmological constant. I would appriciate a clarification on the facts, if you have time to comment. Alternatively, you could use your mind rays to erase my memory of the blasted thing….
Why does everything have to be about effing string theory? Jesus.
kmeson– Yes, I heard that and nearly posted about it, then decided it just wasn’t worth it. If I remember correctly, the guy was saying that the Big Bang theory wasn’t accepted for a long time because it was thought to have religious implications — even leading Einstein to propose the cosmological constant. It was completely crazy and untrue. Sadly, the commentator was from the Heritage Foundation, a purportedly-respectable conservative think tank, so it’s another sign of how conservatives are going down the intellectual drain.
Judge Jones says, “Your Jedi mind tricks won’t work on me!”
The Heritage Foundation, well known liars and propagandists, haven’t been respectable since Reagan left office.
I love how Behe’s dismissal of immunology completely backfired on him. That made my week.
“Upshot: scientists need to be outspoken, convincing, and relentless in simultaneously persuading and educating the public.”
Indeed! Scientists also need to begin to be characters of substance in the media, more so than forensic sleuths and less so than Bill Nye the Science Guy. We all need to have science spread out past the PBS and Discovery Networks into mainstream broadcast realms and quality films. And contrary to some others opinions, a script featuring a string theorist as the lead working class hero in a fine drama would be just fine with me.
Quick Q&A for Dumb Biologist:
Q: Have string theorists attempted to force teachers to promote their ideas in science classes?
A. No!
Q: Does it therefore follow that anyone who tries to equate string theorists with ID proponents is talking complete rubbish?
A: Yes!
I don’t see how coersion is in any way the issue here.
Forced teaching of any sort is, of course, improper, but that’s not what’s really wrong with ID. What’s really wrong with ID is it cannot be falsified, even in principle. You can’t falsify an assertion like “there is a designer, and he/she/it is responsible for whatever some other theory can’t explain”. That’s precisely the sort of thing science isn’t, and that’s why calling ID “science” is wrong. That’s why teaching ID as “science” is wrong. It’s wrong to teach it as science whether there’s a coercive theocratic motive behind that or not. It’s wrong because science is an empirical discipline, and incredulously repeating “goddidit” isn’t.
Now take, say, this value of the cosmological constant that has everyone so bowled over. Just as ID “theorists” look at complex biological systems and say “I just can’t believe it’s an accident!”, it appears they take great delight in pointing out that some of the constants of nature have the appearance of “fine tuning”. Because it looks fine-tuned for life, they assert the completely unfalsifiable existence of a creator who did the fine-tuning, and claim one must entertain this notion if one is to be an honest scientist.
The apparent flip side of claiming the appearance of fine-tuning implies an inscrutable designer, is to claim ours is but one of many universes, or vacua, or whataver you want to call that “space”, and that we darn well better believe it’s an accident, given there’s 10^500 (or some other monstrously big number) other options.
Trouble is, we very well can’t actually probe these other universes any more than we can see the designer, except in our heads, now can we?
Maybe the LHC will spit out some SUSY, maybe we’ll see a string in the CMB, maybe the inverse square law fails at whatever distance is just smaller than what hasn’t been probed yet. Or not.
It’s becoming less and less clear, from an empirical standpoint, why Calabi-Yau manifolds are any more connected to observable reality than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, given that there’s presently an argument in the quantum gravity field about whether falsifiablility is a valid criterion for fundamental physics. Seems they’ve reached this philosophical juncture because ST might just yield an astoundingly diverse multiverse, and hence testing predictions goes out the window. Instead you explore the Landscape. On paper. Some hope this isn’t really what they’re stuck with, but will keep insisting strings is the way to go because, hey, you got a better idea?
So what’s rubbish? Where’s the theory (being conventionally defined as something tested and predictive)? Where’s the science (being the process by which one tests theories using empirical evidence)? What’s the real distinction from philosophical exercises like modal realism? If the LHC finds no SUSY, will people stop working on ST? Will it really take galaxy-sized accelerators to answer the crucial questions with evidence?
The possible answers to some of those questions are just as disturbing, to me, as anything any ID proponent wants to foist upon us as scientific.
The difference between string theory and ID (as I thought would be evident to pretty much anyone without an axe to grind) is that string theorists hope to make predictions. IDers never will.
If all you really want to do is to say bad things about string theory, we’ve heard it all before. Go read the old threads or something.
I may be wrong, but I’m pretty sure the original post had nothing to do with string theory. Focus, people!
If I’ve an axe to grind, it’s because the very definition of science has been assaulted by the ID “theorists”, with alarming success in terms of public perception. That we need judges to defend the scientific method from these frauds in our schools is utterly depressing. I’m happy for Jones’ decision, but deeply disturbed by what its necessity implies.
Nothing seems more clear in light of the false controversy over ID than this: The meaning of words like “science”, and “theory”, matters. A lot. Perverting such meaning is destructive to the progress we’ve made as a species from our superstitious past.
The rest of what I think, you know. Hope doesn’t cut it if testability is ultimately optional.
Obviously the issue of pots calling kettles black is too far off topic. Won’t happen again.
It is astounding to me that there are biologists who want to get into a pissing match over semantics. Unless they’ve got something new to add concerning the p53 protein, they’re wasting time and lives.
A two second visit to PubMed would show work on p53 is quite active. Whether or not research into plausible novel functions of p53 continues to be worthwhile will be determined by exhaustive experimention and the results such investigation yields.
I’ll be sure and refer your comments to Stephanie L. Komen. We’re aware there’s plenty of work going on, but not enough and not fast enough. So whatever time, effort, and energy you spend arguing philosophy is simply wasted. Your impatience with experiment not catching up with theory is also laughable since there have been plenty of instances in biology where different avenues of research have been discouraged for fear of being too risky (stomach ulcers being one of them). With your strong emphasis on experiemtation & observation I would have hoped that you would be advocating the LISA mission since there are many unresolved problems in classical GR.
Regardless, most high school students I know are just learning about covariant derivatives. Fortunately, they can spot a disillusioned philospher with an axe to grind from a mile away.
http://www.komen.org/intradoc-cgi/idc_cgi_isapi.dll?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=299