>>How are we to determine whether a theory is true if it cannot be validated experimentally?
A theory without experimental falsifiability is not a theory, but a hypothesis. I understand that Physicists might be frustrated by the lack of ability to validate all the math they've been doing, but if that's the way it is then they are not special and certainly not in a unique position in human history.
I'm sure a lot of great thinkers in the past felt the same way about the atom, etc. You don't get to opt out of science/knowledge just because you don't like that current human technology can't validate any of your ideas.
Edit:
Martin Rees has addressed this very topic. It might be that humanity never gets to discover everything about the Universe:
http://edge.org/response-detail/25519
In science a theory is a framework that connects facts, it can't be demoted to a hypothesis nor can it become a law. Sometimes people say theory to mean hypothesis but that's not how it's being used in this article.
4 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 19.1 ms ] threadA theory without experimental falsifiability is not a theory, but a hypothesis. I understand that Physicists might be frustrated by the lack of ability to validate all the math they've been doing, but if that's the way it is then they are not special and certainly not in a unique position in human history.
I'm sure a lot of great thinkers in the past felt the same way about the atom, etc. You don't get to opt out of science/knowledge just because you don't like that current human technology can't validate any of your ideas.
Edit: Martin Rees has addressed this very topic. It might be that humanity never gets to discover everything about the Universe: http://edge.org/response-detail/25519