File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2000/bhaskar.0007, message 74


From: "Wallace Polsom" <wallace-AT-raggedclaws.com>
Subject: Re: BHA: Re: RE: Re: Re: Theology and critical realist praxis
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 17:21:41 -0600


> I love this example. It makes my point exactly.

I don't think so.

> Nothing here is at the
> level of the empirical (something CR suggests - npte the "must exist"); it
> is all at the level "if it is the case, then it must be the case..." and
> from this is inferred ....

Exactly so. But why isn't string theory the current dogma in physics? It's
been around in one form or other for nearly 30 years! Simply put, it's
because string theorists have yet to produce any experimental evidence for
their theory.

> I am sorry, but this is going to sound awfully patronising,

You always sound patronising.

> but I suggest
> many list memmers go back and reexamine Rbs important distinction between
> the empirical, the actual and the real. Honestly, when did you last
> empirically come across Supersymmetry? (which beacuse you have not
> empirically come across it does not mean it does not exist).

And just because string theory predicts supersymmetry doesn't mean that
supersymmetry DOES exist.

> More to the
> point this example clearly shows scientists following a theory where the
> entities have yet to be dicovered; ie. the empirical evidence is very
> slight (perhaps even missing totally at present).

Without experimental evidence, what is the status of string theory?

It's an interesting possibility. And that's about it.








     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005