tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post5806785821135591905..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: How Popper killed Particle PhysicsSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger129125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-78260444263345789842020-12-26T13:11:04.171-05:002020-12-26T13:11:04.171-05:00It would be easy to construct an example of a theo...It would be easy to construct an example of a theory that elegantly and efficiently explains one phenomenon but is utterly incompatible with theories explaining related phenomena. No theory is an island. It is one piece in a giant jigsaw puzzle called Science, the goal of which is to "paint" a complete and integrated picture of the world. (I said "goal", so don't botherJess H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13052528013797179812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-50722485060005048452020-12-26T08:37:11.418-05:002020-12-26T08:37:11.418-05:00A good hypothesis, loosely speaking, is one that e...A good hypothesis, loosely speaking, is one that either explains more, or that needs less to explain the same data to the same accuracy. <br /><br />I say "loosely" because there are also theoretical advances that one could call improvements of user-friendliness which are enormously important to the practice of science but sometimes go underappreciated. Eg, Feynman diagrams were not Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-65818336662638019292020-12-26T08:24:20.044-05:002020-12-26T08:24:20.044-05:00hello, I'm new to this blog, so apologies if I...hello, I'm new to this blog, so apologies if I missed some previous blogs about my question.<br />I agree with your opinion about the present criterion for a scientific theory, however it makes me wonder, what in your opinion, classifies as a good hyposthesis/theory?PenPalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17696592167979113830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-35796358285123934612020-07-10T00:08:33.692-04:002020-07-10T00:08:33.692-04:00No, what you say is wrong. As I have said over and...No, what you say is wrong. As I have said over and over and over again, "simpler" is a statement about a theory's ability to accurately explain data. It is meaningless to praise a theory itself for being "simple" because there's no merit in having a "simple" theory if it does not describe Nature. It is very, very difficult to explain currently available data Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-15362708238419242252020-07-09T15:35:30.284-04:002020-07-09T15:35:30.284-04:00Sabine,
That only creates the problem of what do y...Sabine,<br />That only creates the problem of what do you mean by "simpler", far as I am concerned Newtonian physics (even when updated) is "simpler"; thus no need to transition from Newton to Einstein!Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569763656129081379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-80379342194489749202020-01-03T12:15:09.798-05:002020-01-03T12:15:09.798-05:00Hear! Hear!
Hear! Hear!<br />Euphoniumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06816053523107992750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-36596770965755015592020-01-02T16:19:16.034-05:002020-01-02T16:19:16.034-05:00Falsification is a silly criterion. Newtonian mech...Falsification is a silly criterion. Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics are NOT even falsifiable- yet are some of our most useful and important models.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-45485809790810243232019-09-10T19:23:21.954-04:002019-09-10T19:23:21.954-04:00Wish there was an upvote optionWish there was an upvote optionecstaticdancerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00689483125547244210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-2953734651147174002018-02-01T00:07:03.531-05:002018-02-01T00:07:03.531-05:00Volodymyr,
Luckily most other readers understood ...Volodymyr,<br /><br />Luckily most other readers understood that this blogpost isn't about Popper. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-7663098260096842842018-01-31T13:57:23.379-05:002018-01-31T13:57:23.379-05:00The discussion is still continuing for three month...The discussion is still continuing for three months without attempts to explicate 1) what Popper did really mean under a scientific theory; 2) how Popper’s understanding fits to real scientific theories and 3) what disputants mean under a scientific theory in the view of plurality of its reconstructions in philosophy of science.vladkuz8@gmail.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05575507754029334460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-26206716860936612372018-01-31T10:22:56.604-05:002018-01-31T10:22:56.604-05:00I think falsifiability as a good demarcation crite...I think falsifiability as a good demarcation criterion, the problem is that not every scientific hypothesis is equally parsimonious, and that's not something to blame falsifiability or Popper for.Roberto Aguirre Maturanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522047788308686305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-39900262810735348742018-01-29T15:36:00.998-05:002018-01-29T15:36:00.998-05:00But once a theory is amended, it is a new theory.But once a theory is amended, it is a new theory.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702861055044478138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-91812211817514408562018-01-27T20:55:55.325-05:002018-01-27T20:55:55.325-05:00Very interesting. I shall just comment the followi...Very interesting. I shall just comment the following affirmation: " That’s because if you cook up a new theory you first have to reproduce all achievements of the already established theories." I think it is generally a good idea but as we know, quantum mechanics does not seems to explain some effects of general relativity but even though was accepted during history. It means that this Manouchkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03638588785921670103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-39023009763008469952017-12-01T12:04:58.688-05:002017-12-01T12:04:58.688-05:00Scientists are clearly not philosophers because Po...Scientists are clearly not philosophers because Popper fought against induction! Do they know that? The problem that science has is that it wants to entertain crazy theories rather than entertain reasonable ones based on what we already know. David Stove completely debunked Popper. Science is about induction and not just deduction!MD Coryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05342743632013663077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-34818599788327440512017-11-28T11:47:25.529-05:002017-11-28T11:47:25.529-05:00Of course, one must try to falsify a theory.
A the...Of course, one must try to falsify a theory.<br />A theory should be testable, falsifiable, coherent, concise and if possible compatible with older theories.<br />What is wrong with falsifiability? It surely is not enough for a theory but it’s surely one of the starting points.<br />Of course, you can falsify a theory claiming that the world is made of little ice-cream triangles or another one Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11833932638167107741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-19063250668144196672017-11-25T21:08:12.200-05:002017-11-25T21:08:12.200-05:00Scientific concepts must satisfy two criteria: emp...Scientific concepts must satisfy two criteria: empirical import and theoretical significance. A concept has empirical import if it has clear and unambiguous criteria of application. For each concept there must be a rule or set of rules which can be used to determine whether or not to predicate the concept of any given spaciotemporal point. These rules themselves must use, or be translatable into,Stephen Marneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709126968172300288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-90770307281342882792017-11-18T19:26:41.516-05:002017-11-18T19:26:41.516-05:00About Bloody Time!About Bloody Time!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17466328958322848135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-83760086293398713092017-11-18T14:37:34.915-05:002017-11-18T14:37:34.915-05:00That's unfair to Popper. Popper's criterio...That's unfair to Popper. Popper's criterion of empirical content is not only absolute (a theory has to be falsifiable) but also relative (if a theory can be falsified by an experiment which cannot falsify the other, competing theory, but not in the other direction, then the first theory has higher empirical content, thus, has to be preferred. <br /><br />Simply adding yet another field Ilja Schmelzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05344206562643658764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-10891466025925570872017-11-15T17:30:37.334-05:002017-11-15T17:30:37.334-05:00Truth is what’s left after the rest has been prove...Truth is what’s left after the rest has been proven false. But instead, in 1934, Popper said that science is what can be shown to be potentially false. It had a disastrous effect on physics.<br /><br />Popper: “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” How does Popper falsify reality?Patrice Aymehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11756076973287456927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-73777970031814146852017-11-15T02:25:04.795-05:002017-11-15T02:25:04.795-05:00Sabine,
You did an admirable job of knocking do...Sabine, <br /><br />You did an admirable job of knocking down Popper reversing straw persons, and calling out formulaic papers. However, if a theory is falsified or a theorem counter exampled, then they are flawed. If easily patched , great, if ugly patched, not great.<br /><br />Are you aware that Popper created a reasonable hypothesis, H, and a test that confirms H, but instead of H gaining Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01705175878443427037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-63380469272813076772017-11-13T21:17:31.913-05:002017-11-13T21:17:31.913-05:00I completely agree: Falsifiability is an interesti...I completely agree: Falsifiability is an interesting idea in the philosophy of science, but to bang on about it as though it's the only idea is bad philosophy. Personally speaking, it seems to me that string theory are like Ptolemaic epicycles heaped upon one another. Also, when science began in Greek antiquity the ideas bounced around then simply weren't falsifiable then but they shaped Moziburhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11836761141351221660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-18890928233408508312017-11-13T17:08:40.241-05:002017-11-13T17:08:40.241-05:00Theories are data compression algorithms. When the...Theories are data compression algorithms. When they get bigger rather than smaller for a given set of data points you are going in the wrong direction.Dirk Bruerehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00584889005839719276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-48491363421537231262017-11-12T12:36:09.736-05:002017-11-12T12:36:09.736-05:00Is this discussion more nuanced than saying that f...Is this discussion more nuanced than saying that falsification itself is scale-dependent: that the universe will only reveal itself in a coarse-grained manner through our inherently inductive theories? So as already instantiated, General Relativity without the Cosmological constant/parameter is but a less effective Effective field theory than one incorporating such a freely available degree of Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07790042974347244193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-45976755100396393012017-11-11T10:56:06.634-05:002017-11-11T10:56:06.634-05:00I can't see what exactly is your proposal for ...I can't see what exactly is your proposal for the new golden standard. The requiement for a theory to make new predictions is also artificial in principle, because you implicitly assume that there are new discoveries waiting to be made. OK, it does not seem to be the moment right now, but the ultimate theory will by definition be fruitless for exactly that reason. Nothing more to explain. On piotrwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16915149286172494213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-21322799937324001942017-11-11T10:17:43.836-05:002017-11-11T10:17:43.836-05:00'All you have to do then is twiddle the detail...'All you have to do then is twiddle the details so that your predictions are just about to become measureable in the next, say, 5 years.'<br />From my pov there is nothing against creating possible theories to solve known problems and of course they have to be falsifiable. But choosing them as you describe more or less intentionally would be the scientific analog of a conspiracy theory: M_Malenfanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09809944942172355661noreply@blogger.com