the scientific method

[Anonymous No.2588981]

is it really even used? all through school i was taught about the scientific method and how necessary it is for scientific advancement.

today i read professional scientific journals of science saying that we don't need it, justifying the lack of its use, and explaining that with just mathematical theory alone we can verify anything.

Is this really true, we don't need to physically show that something can physically occur in order for it to be classed as real, instead we just get shown equations we don't understand and are told that x y and z are real mathematically and therefore are really real?

Sorry for the poor writing.

TL;DR

If a modern physicist proves something mathematically and no one can show that his math is wrong/invalid in some way, is it automatically true.

If something is mathematically true (within a mathematical physical model) does this necessitate that it is physically true as well, or can something be true within a model, but then actually not work in reality, while the mathematical model itself is still generally accurate for most things?

If the latter is the correct standpoint, why do these physicists and shit get away with not doing anything to prove their theories? Obviously many do in fact try to physically prove their shit, but many don't as well and it pisses me off.

[Anonymous No.2588985]

> today i read professional scientific journals of science saying that we don't need it
[citation needed]

Those scientific journals of science sound really sciency.

[Anonymous No.2588984]

[Anonymous No.2588998]

>Abandon scientific method
>Religion becomes science

Theists 1
Athiests 0

[Anonymous No.2589003]

>>2588985
Examples would be Nature, Science Magazine, American Institute of Physics, Journal of Applied Physics (not so much as AIP).

In fact here is one I was reading a few minutes ago that made me start this thread:
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/729/2/137

Op here, hope these are legitimate enough journals for you.

[Anonymous No.2589024]

>>2589003
>
Op here, hope these are legitimate enough journals for you.

Essentially, both now and in the past I have seen it almost assumed that various mathematical physical discoveries cannot and need not be subject to the scientific method, but are still considered scientific.

I have also actually seen this stance argued by predominant physicists (Michio Kaku is one example of a predominant one who has argued that for 'some things', we can't use the scientific method but 'discoveries' regarding them that are mathematically sound and work with the mathematical model of the day are still true. I believe the specific subject he was on was the age of the earth, stating that there is no way to use the scientific method to discover this (an assumption).

Michio is just going from memory, I watch/read a lot and I'm not a christfag either I'm an atheistfag, I'm just putting this shit up for scrutiny because it's fucked up to be mad at someone scrutinizing science, that's the point.

Why can shit be legit if it "can't be proven" (and thus also "can't be falsified"), how is this not hypocritical?

Are our mathematical models really 100% true to the point that we can bypass the scientific method, and if not why is shit getting published without scientific method as though it is science?

[Anonymous No.2589062]

>>2589003
I read the abstract and introduction of the paper you provided and what the fuck does that have anything to do with what you are talking about?

[Anonymous No.2589071]

Op again, yep I was right Michio is an example of a predominant physicist who does not believe that the scientific method is needed for things that are hard to use the scientific method for.

Essentially he says, "When it's hard to actually be scientific, give up, make something up, and call it a day."

One big huge example would be string theory, which I was reading about in prominent journals well before 2009 (the very first year that ANY physical evidence was presented).

Now, naturally, this tends to support the argument that if we can figure something out that appears mathematically true, it is, since first they said it was true as though it 'just is' because the math said so, and then years later after publishing that it was real and such, boom, they physically showed it.

Still, why was it real before it was real?

[Anonymous No.2589080]

>>2589062
He does not use the scientific method but he is published on a reputable famous journal as though it is scientific?

Instead he makes several leaps and then justifies them mathematically instead of physically.

[Anonymous No.2589082]

>>2589080
If that's what you got out of the paper then you are retarded.

[Anonymous No.2589083]

>>2588981
>If a modern physicist proves something mathematically and no one can show that his math is wrong/invalid in some way, is it automatically true.

Nope. That isn't how physics works. You cannot just generate physical truths from math. You require observation and physical evidence.

\thread

[Anonymous No.2589095]

>>2589083
String theory before 2009 but after 2005.

Sorry man you are just denying what actually happens. I think these people want funding so they try and make their shit seem real as fuck before it's proven so the government will pay them, and then it's their ass if they are wrong so they fucking make sure they are right.

This is not everyone, but it obviously happens, you denying it doesn't change that.

[Anonymous No.2589106]

>>2589082
He observed various motions and then used mathematics alone to explain them. He did not observe a causation, he used mathematics alone to explain a witnessed phenomenon.

Nothing was done to verify his claims other than that his mathematics were checked for accuracy.

This is called "proving physical causation with just math alone."

[Anonymous No.2589116]

>>2589106
Journal is called:
"EXCITATION OF STELLAR OSCILLATIONS BY GRAVITATIONAL WAVES"

He shows this using observation of the stellar bodies and then mathematics. At no point ever does he in any way physically attempt to prove the existence of gravity waves.

Instead he uses an implied god of the gaps and says "it's gravity waves!" (eg "It's god!") without physical evidence.

[Anonymous No.2589118]

>>2589095
People have been considering string theory and attempting to find ways to test it. It has never been assumed to be true, and has received a lot of criticism for having no physical evidence. I'm not an expert on the topic but hasn't relatively recent evidence shown that string theory is unlikely?

Also, don't bother with Michio Kaku. The man's a fucking troll.

[Anonymous No.2589129]

>>2589106
8/10

[Anonymous No.2589135]

>>2589118
This is a better answer than what I have received so far.

That said, can you show me where the scientific method is here?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1006/1006.4803v2.pdf

I just can't find it.

Various journals published String Theory several years before ANY physical evidence existed, sure there was criticism, this doesn't mean my op is wrong.

My op argues that the scientific community is allowing more and more material which does not meet the standard of the scientific method to be published in a way that the average person might mistake the study (because of the reputation of the journal) as something with more credibility than it actually has.

In other words, before string theory was actually scientifically showable in any way at all, scientific journals were masturbating to it and for instance I knew many people that would bring it up in discussion as something that was "discovered" and they considered it the newest physics breakthrough.

Sure, I expect that the best and the brightest look at shit like that and laugh or cringe, but when a regular guy is reading a scientific journal and it's publishing shit as though it has the same credibility as things which have been shown over and over through the use of the scientific method, it really brings to question the integrity of those journals and whether or not they engage in a sort of pseudo science sensationalism to keep the population interested.

[Anonymous No.2589136]

>>2589095
>>2589095
String theory is generally not considered physics, by the particle physics or physics community in general.

It is not ever taught as part of the standard particle/high energy/nuclear physics Phd curriculum (in general).

String theory is a "mathematical theory" not a "physical theory". String theory doesn't even qualify as science, let alone physics. Please get your shit straight son!

[Anonymous No.2589142]

>>2589129
Instead of actually demonstrating you own understanding of the journal's abstract, and my misunderstanding, you've decided to just claim that I'm wrong and too stupid to understand.

Is this how the scientific method works these days?

????

[Anonymous No.2589153]

>>2589136
> citation needed

Here's common knowledge on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

It's wiki, but the point is that wiki illustrates the public perception of string theory, which is not really differentiated from real science, and which as of 2009 physical evidence was presented to support its claims.

[Anonymous No.2589167]

>>2589142
I recognize that
A. you are either a troll
or
B. you are fucking retarded

>"Numerical results for the Sun that we present in the second part of the paper suggest that this excitation mechanism together with experimental data from the Kepler satellite and theoretical computations in the case of excitation by turbulent convection is likely to either provide a new method of detecting GWs or of deducing a significant upper limit on a stochastic background of gravitational wave radiation (SBGW) at intermediate frequencies in the near future."

[Anonymous No.2589171]

>>2589135
>Various journals published String Theory several years before ANY physical evidence existed, sure there was criticism, this doesn't mean my op is wrong.
Yes, it does. You claimed that it was accepted as science and fact without any direct evidence, and that's simply not true. It's never been considered fact. Work on string theory has always been theoretical - scientists discussing ways to test it and considering the ramifications of string theory being true.

[Anonymous No.2589177]

FOR EXAMPLE in wiki this is how they describe the 'controversey' around string theory:

"Although string theory comes from physics, some say that string theory's currently untested status means that it should be classified as more of a mathematical framework for building models as opposed to a physical theory.[33] "

> Although String Theory comes from physics
(lol, this is my point exactly wtf is this shit?)

> some say string theories untested status means it should be classified as a more mathematical framework for building models as opposed to a physical theory

This strongly implies that the common public perception, with citation (this statement is actually cited in the wiki article), is that string theory is a PHYSICAL scientific theory and that only "some" people dispute it as "mathematical only."

Try again liar. Holy shit I come to /sci/ for real discussion and ideology fucking blocks real discussion instantly.

[Anonymous No.2589179]

>>2589106
>>2589116
>>2589135

You three of you are retarded as fuck. Ya'll don't even know what the scientific method is.

First step: Observation
Next: Make a hypothesis based on your observation
......
etc

YOU CAN MAKE A HYPOTHESIS AND PUBLISH IT!
THE MAJORITY OF SHIT PUBLISHED WILL BE HYPOTHESES!

String theory is a "scientific hypothesis" not an actual theory (yet).

\thread

[Anonymous No.2589181]

The tl:dr is about the same length as the original comment. What give OP?

[Anonymous No.2589186]

>>2589171
See
>>2589177

I'm citing sources demonstrating my claims as true by showing real journals, then "science" regulars are coming on and saying:

"LOL you're dumb I'm not going to cite any sources or in any way verify my claims like you are doing, I am a scientist!"

Really? Why should I take your anonymous word over wikipedia's well cited article?

[Anonymous No.2589194]

>>2589153
>public perception of string theory

Ohh, I see your problem, you are being a dumbshit.
The public is stupid as fuck, and usually don't know shit about science. They get everything wrong, and generally have no idea WTF is going on.

Ya'll still think there is debate over global warming, or evolution...LMFAO!

[Anonymous No.2589198]

>>2589179

You saying this doesn't change the fact that String Theory is widely considered as a physical theory.

I've cited sources to back up my claims, you've simply made claims.

Most of the people who hear about string theory do not think "oh that's just a hypothesis" they think it is on the same level as quantum and relativity.

You are full of shit if you claim otherwise, this is the public perception and it's only possible because of dishonest scientific journalism.

If string theory were painted as just a mathematical basis for a model, and not as a physical theory on par with relativity and quantum physics, then people wouldn't think if fucking was.

Wikipedia thinks that the criticism against string theory is just "some" people, as I've already shown. On top of that wiki cites several sources in order to illustrate that it's position is correct.

You're posting pics that say "congratulations you are retarded" and basically saying "haha you are wrong because I say so, retard!"

[Anonymous No.2589199]

>>2589186
wikipedia is not a valid source dipshit

[Anonymous No.2589196]

>>2589177
Nobody gives a fuck about the public. They think evolution is "just a theory."
>>2589186
Stop being dumb. Seriously stop it.

[Anonymous No.2589204]

>>2589198
>String Theory is widely considered as a physical theory.

This is what retards actually believe.

Trollin?

[Anonymous No.2589212]

>>2589198
>>2589198


You are seriously underestimating the stupidity of the public.
They hear "string theory" and go "lolwut"
IF they know ANYTHING about it they will go "lolsciencethat'scoolcuzidontknowshit"
Who gives a flying fuck what the public thinks? They don't know anything and it remains a fact that "string theory" has not, and will not be considered part of the standard model without empirical evidence.

[Anonymous No.2589214]

>>2589194
Why are you bringing ideological discussions into my thread?
1. I don't think there is a debate about global warming, lol, you just assumed you know what my credentials and beliefs are based on my casual writing style and the fact that I'm willing to challenge something in the field of science that I think is negative for scientific advancement?

2. No, I am arguing that it is INTENTIONAL sensationalism, and that it harms the field of science and will ultimately (in history) harm our present society's credibility. We will be criticized for it in the same way that we criticize our ancestors for it. Our ancestors, at the time, would have jolly agreed with you, the one who's saying "lol no."

It's been shown that people with a core belief will often not lose that belief even in the face of direct and obvious contrary evidence to their claim.

String theory is considered a real physical theory regardless of if you personally don't consider it one, that's great that just means you agree with me without knowing it.

[Anonymous No.2589215]

>>2589186
>>2589177
You're contradicting yourself. First you say that wikipedia's article represents a layman's view of the topic, and then you say that the wikipedia article proves scientists are claiming it to be a physical law without proper evidence.

Scientific journals publish articles that are relevant to the scientific topics they cover. String theory is relevant to physics, but it's not an absolute law, and it's not based on direct observation. Scientists haven't attempted to sell it as such either, they've just been discussing the theoretical impact of it being correct and debating ways in which it might be tested.

Uneducated people taking this to mean that string theory has been physically proven are wrong. This doesn't mean that science is abandoning the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.2589225]

>>2589198
The public doesn't read scientific journals. They read news reports that are sensationalized reports of press releases that a university's pr department put out.

This is one of the reasons why the public thinks of retarded stuff about science. It has nothing to do with "dishonest scientific journalism."

[Anonymous No.2589239]

>>2589215
It's both brother, if you would like to dispute any of the claims within the wikipedia article, then DO SO.

I challenge you to dispute that wikipedia article and correct it. If you can permanently correct that article to reflect YOUR PERSONAL VIEWS (lol), then I'll believe you that the article could say anything.

Your version that says it's widely considered bs without physical proof needs

> Citation.

:)

Claiming the wiki article, which cites legitimate sources and is peer reviewed constantly is less valid than your arbitrary anonymous claims on /sci/ contradicting it does nothing for me.

I don't know you, I don't believe you are more credible or have more knowledge than wikipedia, and I do not believe you have a better understanding of where string theory is in terms of credibility currently than that article does.

Prove me wrong or gtfo you speculation fag.

[Anonymous No.2589258]

>>2589239
"wikipedia source isn't real!"

"please prove that the wikipedia article on this specific subject (let's say as of 10:00 PM Pacific Time 2/22/2011) is wrong about its claims regarding string theory and its legitimacy.

If you can't, it's most reasonable in this case for me to continue to take the more credible source (wikipedia over anonymous dude on /sci/ who's only evidence for any of his claims so far are "herp derp you're dumb!" worded differently over and over again) seriously and the troll source (the one claiming string theory isn't taken seriously despite copious evidence to the contrary) as trolling.

[Anonymous No.2589284]

>>2589258
Did you just fucking respond to your own post? wtf is going on now?

[sage No.2589285]

>>2589214
>String theory is considered a real physical theory

LMFAO

No, it is not. Not scientifically. And I could give a shit less about what the public thinks. (The general public doesn't know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory).

I am changing the wiki just for you. Stop bitching little guy. Sage cause you have reached troll level stupidity.

[SAGE No.2589317]

>>2588981

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

End of First Paragraph:
"The theory has yet to make testable experimental predictions, which a theory must do in order to be considered a part of science."

\thread

[Anonymous No.2589325]

>>2589258
as expected i ask for evidence and none is shown. so far in this thread only the side arguing that advancements which are not actually scientific are intentionally made out to seem more legit than they are in order to sensationalize science and get people grant money has actually been citing sources, meanwhile the fag/s who've been trying to claim otherwise have just supplemented their arguments with their anonymous opinion alone.

[Anonymous No.2589332]

>>2589317
Well I admit I am wrong then.

[Anonymous No.2589337]

I'm glad I was wrong btw, so victory clap yourself for winning as I smile because science is still winning.

[sage No.2589341]

>>2589325

[Anonymous No.2589347]

>>2589337


Now go fuck yourself.
Though you did raise an important point: the supremacy of the scientific method and skepticism.
But seriously. Go fuck yourself.

[sage No.2589352]

>>2588981
>>2588981
>>2588981
DELETE YOUR SHITTY THREAD

[Anonymous No.2589360]

>>2589352
absolutely not this is a mark of excellence where ignorance was defeated. why would i delete it just because i was the ignorant one?

[Anonymous No.2589364]

>>2589352
Also thanks for that trophy it's actually pretty badass looking and I'll just tell people it's Rasta instead of gay.

[Anonymous No.2589458]

All current physical theories (tested models, such as newton's law of gravity, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics) are mathematical models which are "wrong" in a sense - they are correct at the right scales, but break down in more special conditions (newton's gravity breaks down at greater lengths, general relativity and quantum mechanics cannot be reconciled as they are; general relativity is still less wrong than newton's gravity). The point here is that these models are useful to give predictions and their limitations are also known (where they will give incorrect results). If you're just using one of these models to predict something which is expected to be correct within the model, it may be fine to publish such a result, and it can be assumed to be possible (or likely true), although experimental verification would of course be useful.

As for string theory, it attempts to unify general relativity and QM, and does a reasonable job at it, with the exception that it's too general so far to give enough predictions which QM and General Relativity can't give, however it's also useful for thinking about borderline issues where QM and General Relativity can't answer. If string theory does make any testable predictions, it will be /less wrong/ than QM and GR, currently it's only as right as them /as a model/ (not as a representation of physical reality). However, we may one day find a string theory (or maybe something else) which is isomorphic to whateverthe underlying instatiation of math our universe really is (unless you believe it's all magical religious fairy tales that run the universe).

[Anonymous No.2589462]

>>2589458
> continued
For all practical purposes, if such a theory is discovered and it is not contradicted by experimental result (and of course, GR and QM prove to be special cases in it), it may as well considered as reality (as all experiments will match), as we'll never be able to truly know the actual internal mechanics of the universe, merely something isomorphic to them (if we're good enough physicists and mathematicians).

[Anonymous No.2589468]

>>2589458
>>2589462
Why would you bump a shitty thread that was already finished? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?

[Anonymous No.2589503]

a^3+b^3=c^3
/thread