Re: [asa] String theory and what that means

Randy wrote: " The first and primary difference is that string theory
has no data to support its claims, nor do its proponents claim to have
any. By contrast, GW and evolution have a myriad of data connected
with their theories.
 Secondly, even in string theory the lack of alternative papers is in
no case, to my knowledge, because of peer reviewers rejecting them on
account of a bias. Rather, Smolin talks about which projects tend to
get funded. That's a major difference.
 So I think you can rest assured on all accounts."

Whenever someone tells me to "rest assured" I get restless!

The phenomenon that disturbs me in Lee's book is the apparent "tribal
mentality" among the scientific community for some problems. I first
saw one of these when Shapely attacked Velikowsky's book 50 years ago,
taking steps to quash it. The fact that Velokowsky's book was so far
outside of reality was his rationale, and others followed him.

Nowadays we cheerfully follow this lead in quashing YEC claims.

But, again, it is the tribal mentality -- circling the wagons -- that
concerns me. Let me focus on GW, not evolution or YEC claims. That
tribal mentality seems (from here) to again be in full force. That
does not make the IPCC claims wrong, of course, but possibly -- just
possibly -- some good science is being overlooked because an anti-GW
scientist can't get a hearing in the literature.

Glenn Morton is one who is highly skeptical of the IPCC claims -- he
and I exchange emails on thsi from time to time. While I don't buy
into his skepticism, he has and does raise questions both as to the
science and data used. Questions I don't see addressed (except in
derision) anywhere.

Freeman Dyson is another who has challenged the IPCC computer
simulation methodologies. Those simulations are, of course, central to
the IPCC claims. AS one who did a lot of simulation exercises on
computers, beginning as early as 1958, I am very aware how results are
often very dependent on starting assumptions, as well as causation
formulae. Dyson's reluctance to endorse IPCC is a fact in causing my
current skepticism.

Burgy (resting uncomfortably)

On 8/11/08, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:
> Burgy,
> The first and primary difference is that string theory has no data to
> support its claims, nor do its proponents claim to have any. By contrast, GW
> and evolution have a myriad of data connected with their theories.
> Secondly, even in string theory the lack of alternative papers is in no
> case, to my knowledge, because of peer reviewers rejecting them on account
> of a bias. Rather, Smolin talks about which projects tend to get funded.
> That's a major difference.
> So I think you can rest assured on all accounts.
>
> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "j burg" <hossradbourne@gmail.com>
> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 3:57 PM
> Subject: [asa] String theory and what that means
>
>
>> The initial question is -- has anyone (particularly Murphy and Moorad)
>> read Lee Smolin's recent book THE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS?
>>
>> If so -- what are your comments?
>>
>> Lee Smolin addresses the apparent failure (over 25 years) of string
>> theory and attributes it, at least in part, to the "false consensus"
>> that arose among its practioners. This, in turn, directed physics to a
>> very conservative approach to quantum problems, and stifled other
>> (possibly productive) research.
>>
>> The first thing I thought of when I read this very interesting book
>> was the question "does the problem Lee addresses (assuming it is real)
>> also apply to global warming? To evolution?
>>
>> For instance, it has been claimed in defense of the IPCC claims that
>> there have been no peer reviewed articles published in the past 4 or 5
>> years critical of their primary thesis. Could it be that such articles
>> do exist but cannot get published because of peer reviews?
>>
>> A similar question could be made of evolutionary theory.
>>
>> Note that I'm just playing the part of a skeptic here. Personally I
>> find the evidences for the fact of evolution and the fact of global
>> warming both to be overwhelming. But something tells me (at least in
>> the case of GW) that I am not hearing all the story.
>> --
>> Burgy
>>
>> www.burgy.50megs.com
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.