Sunday, May 10, 2009

"Science--philosophy rules" poll

"String Theory"--Knot

Should a set of rules be established to discern the difference between "science" and "philosophy"--to make clear, recognizable, and a sound epistemology...i.e., "string theory" as being simply wild speculation--science fiction?


A fine line or demarcation must be established for a sound science epistemology otherwise statements become intertwined in the unprovable--fantasy or science fiction. For example, "string theory", as most represented by Brian Greene, is littered with unprovable statements and descriptions of parallel universes, multiple universes, interacting universes, and other assorted bizarre features. What kind of science is that? It isn't science; it's philosophy...and should be prefaced with the declaimer that it is philosophy and treated as such. A sound science castle is not built on a sand foundation.

And yes, I have asked this question before...

"Theoretical physics...good epistemology?" poll

1 comment:

Timray said...

i am currently working on this....
from "Rollerblading"

where mathematics has begun to assault
and fail its own logical symphony
jabberwocky algorithms, improbable fractals
defining mystical dimensions

to be finished