Science, The Mutant

Roger · Post by **Roger** » Sun Mar 13, 2016 1:57 am

I've always been fascinated by a new discovery, especially when it's existence was considered to be a myth. I won't delve into the doctrines of any mythoi as it requires far more space (and time) than is available through this media platform. Suffice to say that every culture incorporates some level of beliefs that are accepted as fact, or as being authoritative.

However, to assume, or otherwise arbitrarily rule on something without all the facts in play, is not adhering to the current principles that make up the philosophy of science, and by extension, such dismissive action makes a mockery of the scientific method.

To put it simply, the principles of science define and specify the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. Although these philosophies are crucial in establishing sound operating principles, in the practical world, where researchers and scientists deal with such weighty issues as social technologies, medical advancements, weapon improvements, business theories, and other such important endeavors, there is little room for things of a more elusive nature.

To be clear, this is different from the Scientific Method, as the principles of science actually establish the methodology by which science proceeds. More specifically, the scientific method is one or more techniques used in investigating phenomena, attaining new knowledge, or adjusting and integrating former knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

Now, the scientific method, which can be can be quite complex in its execution, and is often used to debunk or otherwise dismiss perplexing occurrences, can be simplified as follows:

Make Observations - What do we see in nature?
Pose Questions - Why does that pattern occur?
Formulate Hypothesis - What are the general causes of the phenomena we are wondering about?
Develop Testable Predictions - If the hypotheses is correct then we can expect X, Y, Z to occur.
Test the Predictions - Thorough testing requires replication to verify results.
Refine, Alter, Expand, Reject Hypothesis - Dependent on the test results matching the predictions, refinement, alteration, expansion, or rejection of the hypothesis might be needed.
Develop General Theories - Inclusion of the theory must be consistent with other relevant data, and with other current theories.

However, it's becoming abundantly clear that the scientific method may actually be a hindrance in some instances of "science".

In a recent article, Why Trust A Theory? Physicists And Philosophers Debate The Scientific Method by theoretical physicist and science writer Sabine Hossenfelder, the problem was brought to the attention of about one-hundred philosophers and physicists at a meeting in Munich.

An increasing number of physicists, [George] Ellis and [Joe] Silk observed, have become strongly convinced of the viability of theories that have no empirical confirmation. This trend is most pronounced in the quest for a theory of quantum gravity – notably string theory – and in cosmology where theories for the early universe give rise to a multiverse. Why, they ask, do scientists trust theories that have not been experimentally tested? Worse, in some cases, these theories cannot even been tested in principle. Is this still science?

The original article published in Nature can be read here: Nature- Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics by George Ellis & Joe Silk

Good question indeed!

Is it still science if there is no empirical evidence to base a theory on?

Sounds like theoretical physicists have finally slammed into the same barrier faced by countless others in ufology, and the paranormal in general.

So are we going to begin describing such theoretical inquires as pseudo-science and fakery? Will those theoretical physicists have to guard against hoaxes and hoaxers, just as ufology has been a victim of for so many years? Now, will any theorem derived from non-empirical "evidence" be subjected to the same ridicule and dismissive attitudes as suffered by ufologists?

Is this the end of string theory and other non-empirical based areas of study?

Exploration of human thought is not necessarily a philosophical discourse, as Einstein and Tesla proved so well.

If theoretical physicists lose the debate, and their studies becomes those of a more ambiguous variety, then we may have no hope of studying and developing theories that explain the presence of UFOs.This would set most of us back fifty years or more.

However, if it should come to known that empirical evidence is of less consequence than previously accepted in science, then we could easily discover a new resurgence and revitalization of ufology, and one having far more authority than ever before.

What do you think?