Cosmologic philosophy: multiverse/string theory (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, December 31, 2014, 21:49 (3615 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/there-is-still-no-physics-above-science-QUOTE: Another voice within this movement is that of philosopher and theorist Richard Dawid. Dawid argues that we can use probability as a stand-in for experiment. That is, using Bayesian analysis, it's possible to determine the probability that a set of facts fits a theory. If the probability is good enough, we can chuck testability. Dawid argues that, because, "no-one has found a good alternative” and “theories without alternatives tended to be viable in the past,” string theory should be assumed legitimate. 
In essence, he's arguing that theorized discoveries can be taken as evidence for fundamental theories. If we had the capability of conducting some experiment, it would probably have this outcome because the mathematics works out. -Dhw: The above argument, which you dismiss as unbelievable garbage, also applies to the God theory.-DAVID: He is saying that pure theoretical math is enough proof; no evidence. This math contains multiple assumptions with no basis in experiment or fact. All it is, are “beautiful”equations. I've presented lots of factual evidence that is strongly inferential.-DAVID: If it is not falsifiable and the math is superb lets accept it as the truth anyway. Horse feathers! Unbelievable garbage.-DAVID: (to GateKeeper): Experimentation is necessary. -DAVID: (to dhw): Both arguments [chance and God] have no fallacies. They have no proof.-According to you, accepting theories that are not falsifiable, and not subject to experimentation, and offer no proof amounts to “horse feathers” and “unbelievable garbage”. Unfortunately, the God theory is not falsifiable, is not subject to experimentation, and offers no proof. Ever heard the expression “to shoot oneself in the foot”? -`