Experimental error
In most scientific disciplines, the prevailing process is to first create a hypothesis and then attempt to prove the implications of that hypothesis through experiments. This has been working in the past and most accept this as an effective process. For example, in Physics many point out that the many implications of Einstein's theory of relativity – such as black holes, gravitational lensing and the expansion of the universe itself – have been proved later by experiments. Thus, they argue that any theory that does not have experimental proof today cannot be rejected as proof could come later. Further, they argue that any theory with implications that do not show the possibility of designing a suitable experiment in the status quo framework cannot be rejected as the framework itself could shift in the future allowing hitherto unknown types of experiments.
In this context, science is a lot closer to philosophy and religion (most scientists hate to admit this), in that neither experimental proof nor the possibility of experimental proof are necessary for proposing a hypothesis. M theory, for example, stipulates the collision of membranes and the associated quantum disturbance as the cause of the origination of the present universe and many others. Sting theory has created such magical concoctions as parallel universes. The fact that experiments cannot be designed within the context of the status quo framework to prove or disprove their hypotheses, never deterred the imagination of modern scientists. Experimentalists, not to be overdone by the theorists, have taken the course of building bigger and bigger machines and feeding themselves with data, till they simply could not take any more. As they look at other branches of investigation such as religion and philosophy with immense contempt, scientists may want to step back and ask themselves if they are any different.
Mathematics has been helpful for those who had practical notions of theory such as Einstein. For contemporary physicists, it is a crutch as they plough forward with theories of no practical value. Incentives in the educational system for increasing the number of publications have created an orgy for mathematical manipulations of irrelevance. We have arrived at the doorstep of the next dark ages – where the "sophisticated," will destroy value by intellectualization.
In this context, science is a lot closer to philosophy and religion (most scientists hate to admit this), in that neither experimental proof nor the possibility of experimental proof are necessary for proposing a hypothesis. M theory, for example, stipulates the collision of membranes and the associated quantum disturbance as the cause of the origination of the present universe and many others. Sting theory has created such magical concoctions as parallel universes. The fact that experiments cannot be designed within the context of the status quo framework to prove or disprove their hypotheses, never deterred the imagination of modern scientists. Experimentalists, not to be overdone by the theorists, have taken the course of building bigger and bigger machines and feeding themselves with data, till they simply could not take any more. As they look at other branches of investigation such as religion and philosophy with immense contempt, scientists may want to step back and ask themselves if they are any different.
Mathematics has been helpful for those who had practical notions of theory such as Einstein. For contemporary physicists, it is a crutch as they plough forward with theories of no practical value. Incentives in the educational system for increasing the number of publications have created an orgy for mathematical manipulations of irrelevance. We have arrived at the doorstep of the next dark ages – where the "sophisticated," will destroy value by intellectualization.
No comments have been added yet.
