Brian Greene NY times op-ed " The universe on a string"

[gnosis92]

here's a link
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/20/opinion/edgreene.php


here's a 20% quote relevant to science and skepticism

Nevertheless, mathematical rigor and elegance are not sufficient. To be judged a correct description of the universe, a theory must make predictions that are confirmed by experiment. And as a small but vocal group of critics of string theory justly emphasize, string theory has yet to do so. This is a key point, so it's worth serious scrutiny.

We understand string theory much better now than we did 20 years ago. Even so, researchers worldwide are still working toward an exact and tractable formulation of the theory's equations. And without that final formulation in hand, the kind of detailed, definitive predictions that would subject the theory to comprehensive experimental vetting remain beyond our reach.

To be sure, no one successful experiment would establish that string theory is right, but neither would the failure of all such experiments prove the theory wrong. If the accelerator experiments fail to turn up anything, it could be that we need more powerful machines; if the astronomical observations fail to turn up anything, it could mean the effects are too small to be seen. The bottom line is that it's hard to test a theory that not only taxes the capacity of today's technology, but is also still very much under development.

Finally, some have argued that if, after decades of research, the theory is still a work in progress, it's time to give up. But to suggest dropping research on the most promising approach to unification because the work has failed to meet an arbitrary timetable for complete success is, well, silly
________________________________________________________________________________________________

[Schneibster]

I could hardly agree more with Dr. Greene. "To suggest dropping research on the most promising approach to unification because the work has failed to meet an arbitrary timetable for complete success is, well, silly...

Will we ever reach that goal? I don't know. But that's both the wonder and the angst of a life in science. Exploring the unknown requires tolerating uncertainty." (Emphasis mine.)

Note that well. Tolerating uncertainty. It's the difference between the true skeptics and those who profess skepticism, but actually can't handle its implications.

[Schneibster]

BTW, gnosis, nice find.

[Bob K]

I could hardly agree more with Dr. Greene. "To suggest dropping research on the most promising approach to unification because the work has failed to meet an arbitrary timetable for complete success is, well, silly...

Will we ever reach that goal? I don't know. But that's both the wonder and the angst of a life in science. Exploring the unknown requires tolerating uncertainty." (Emphasis mine.)

Note that well. Tolerating uncertainty. It's the difference between the true skeptics and those who profess skepticism, but actually can't handle its implications.

I agree.

The same mantra, "Exploring the unknown requires tolerating uncertainty," can be argued against the moralists who claim Adult Stem Cell Research/ASCR shows promise and therefore Embryonic Stell Cell Research/ESCR ought to be abandoned. Until ASCR produces treatments for currently untreatable medical conditions and thereby eliminates the need for ESCR, then ESCR should be continued.

But inre string theory, which at present sustains and therefore supports itself purely by mathematical speculations, there are the requirements of at least some scientists which bear at least some consideration:

Mathematics

Mathematics Must Describe Reality

If mathematics describe reality--the people/things/events who/which are comprised of matter/energy--then mathematics would confirm verbal descriptions of reality and therefore augment other proof(s) of hypotheses.

But mathematics is useful ONLY if it describes reality.

Dr. Albert Einstein was aware of the problem of esoteric/useless mathematics when he stated "The mathematics must not get in the way of the physics." [I do not recall my source of this quote--perhaps someone else could help with a useful quote source.]

Lerner, Eric
The Big Bang Never Happened
Vintage Books, Random House, Inc. New York, 1991
p. 204

[Hannes] Alfven [Nobel Laureate, Physics] asserted that only observation linked to laboratory experiments can lead to an understanding of the solar system and its origin. Mathematical theory, he emphasized, must always be the servant of physical understanding and close observation—never the master.

Greene, Brian
The Elegant Universe
Vintage Books, Random House, Inc. New York, 2000
p. 203

"The physicist Ernest Rutherford once said, in essence, that if you can't explain a result in simple, nontechnical terms, then you really don't understand it. He wasn't saying that this means your result is wrong; rather, he was saying that it means you do not fully understand its origin, meaning, or implications."

Bernstein, Jeremy
Einstein
Penguin Books, 625 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022, USA, 1976.
p. 35.

There is one thing I would be glad to ask you. When a mathematician engaged in investigating physical actions and results has arrived at his conclusions may they not be expressed in common language as fully, clearly, and definitely as in mathematical formulae? If so, would it not be a great boon to such as I to express them so?--translating them out of the hieroglyphics, that we might also work upon them by experiment. I think it must be so, because I have always found that you could convey to me a perfectly clear idea of your conclusions, which, though they may give me no full understanding of the steps of your process, give me the results neither above nor below the truth, and so clear in character that I can think and work from them. If this be possible, would it not be a good thing if mathematicians, working on these subjects, were to give us the results in this popular, working state, as well as in that which is their own and proper to them? -- Michael Faraday, age 66, to James Clerk Maxwell, age 26, inre Maxwell's use of mathematics to describe electromagnetics.

Cited in MacDonald, D.K.C., Faraday, Maxwell and Kelvin, p. 79.

In sum, an excessive dependence of theorists upon mathematical descriptions without effective verbal descriptions of a theory may suggest that ultimately the theorists may not really know what they are theorizing.

We who are not mathematicians need to have available from string theorists and/or others sufficient verbal descriptions and operational definitions of string theory's fundamental concepts (mental representations/ideas of objects--configurations of atoms/molecules/etc. comprised of matter/energy) and principles (mental representations/ideas of events--relationships, especially, causal relationships, between/among objects comprised of m/e) to begin to understand string theory.

Otherwise, we who are not mathematicians have to be content to trust the abilities and integrities of string theorists and temporarily ignore our need for verbal descriptions and operational definitions of the concepts & principles of string theory.

[youngalexander]

Note that well. Tolerating uncertainty. It's the difference between the true skeptics and those who profess skepticism, but actually can't handle its implications.
Skepticism means never knowing. How fortunate are we who can live with that!

[Schneibster]

Yep. Never trust ANYONE who says they know when it comes right down to it. Nobody knows, and anyone who claims to lies.