Try this fun game. In the following paragraph, clipped from Brian Greene's elegant defense of string theory in the NY Times, I've taken the liberty of substituting a "belief in God" for "string theory":
To be sure, no one successful experiment would establish that [a belief in God] is right, but neither would the failure of all such experiments prove [a belief in God] wrong. If the accelerator experiments fail to turn up anything, it could be that we need more powerful machines [in order to see God]; if the astronomical observations fail to turn up anything, it could mean the effects [of God] are too small to be seen. The bottom line is that it's hard to test a [belief in God] that not only taxes the capacity of today's technology, but is also still very much under development.
As I've said before, I don't know why evangelicals waste their time on Darwin and biology. If I were a true believer, or a shill at the Discovery Institute, I'd spent my time studying avant-garde physics.
Update: In response to a comment, I thought I'd make myself a bit more clear. I don't really think that string theory is a cult, or equivalent to religion. I was simply trying to point out the problems with any scientific theory that can't conceive of its own falsification. When string theorists know what will make them wrong, I'll be much more convinced that they might be right. Until then, I'm afraid string theorists have more in common with metaphysicians than they do with most other scientists.
- Log in to post comments
As a physics grad student who doesn't know much about string theory, I would argue that it seems a little unfair to compare it to a belief in god. No doubt string theory is built upon a foundation, far beneath it, of experiment and accepted theory. It's just been built so far above that base that it teeters; it will be a long time before experiment catches up with it. That is to say, it seems like it's not as unlikely or irrational as god, and nor is it likely to be completely right or completely wrong. It just seems like these theorists should re-focus their efforts to bring them back in line with where experiment is at. The real results come when theory and experiment advance together.
But that's all pretty general. Like I said, I know little about it.
You're right, Jeff. I was being unfair. But I did think that Greene's editorial, while eloquent and at times persuasive, was marred by a few problematic sections. Of course, this isn't just a matter of rhetoric: it's a problem with string theory itself. It's been said before and I'll say it again: I think one has to wonder about a theory that can't conceive of its own falsification. When string theorists know what will make them wrong, I'll be much more convinced that they might be right.