RE: Scientific theory

I am no defender of string theory, but I must say that contrary to evolutionary theory, string theory can be cast into a precise mathematical formalism that may or may not describe nature. Witness the mathematical work of Bernhard Riemann, who posed the problem of how to define an n-dimensional space and ended up giving definition of what today is called a Riemannian space, so important to general relativity. The same may be one day with string theory. Evolutionary theory supposes species/species transitions that will forever escape experimental verification.
 
Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Randy Isaac
Sent: Tue 12/7/2004 8:57 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Scientific theory

"Evolution is not an experimental science. Is it? It uses science in the same way that forensic science uses experimental science. Evolution deals with unique, historical events--just like cosmology....
Moorad"

Scientific methodology depends a great deal on testability and falsifiability. String theory is an example of a theory that doesn't yet meet that criterion and is therefore often seen as something other than true science. In Brian Greene's TV presentation last year on string theory, one scientist opined that "there are physicists and then there are string theorists". In today's NYTimes, the Science Times section had a major article on string theory which included this quote: "This disparity between theoretical speculation and testable reality has led some critics to suggest that string theory is as much philosophy as science...." Personally, I favor loop quantum gravity, but that's not testable either at this point. I just prefer its philosophy.
 
In sharp contrast, the theory of evolution is very testable and falsifiable, and meets all the tests that I know of for being a bona fide scientific theory.
 
Randy
Received on Tue Dec 7 21:49:59 2004