Hm. Well, I'm not sure what you mean there - might be the same
thing: My understanding is the lack of empirical evidence
supporting certain more "far out" theories, some of which may
never be provable through experiment. What kind of theories are
they? Are they scientific theories? What kind? How do we
describe them accurately in order to distinguish unverifiable
theory from verifiable theory? I believe this is the intent.
There was lack of philosophical basis behind this new type of
scientific theory - the likely untestable ones - but it looks
like they're working on it in order to salvage this new way of
doing science from entering the religious/mythology/theology
dept. == In short, at present, mathematically provable isn't a
substitute for scientifically provable. It's currently more
equatable to mythology supported by mathematical proofs. If it's
going to be considered legitimate science, something has to
change and it's likely naming "what kind of theory is this?"
properly will do so, in order to distinguish it from throwing up
a ball and catching it 100 times. = $ Lots of $ in this stuff.
It's popular with the public. We LOVE alternate universes. How
many TV Science shows, science promoters, the BBC, all involved
in promoting Science utilizing the LEAST scientific of all the
theories... engaging our imagination, getting people interested
in Science, etc. But... ..it's not really Science. Not really.
It's mathematics combined with fascinating ideas that we can't
verify. The value in it is tremendous - LITERAL value. Money
value. If they lose this part of Science as being called
"Science", a lot goes away. People don't want to think of
Science as trudging through swamps looking through microscopes
at new bacteria. People don't want to think of stinky chemistry
labs. We want the way-out-there stuff. That's why Philosophy
enters in: it gives what Science is currently missing: a
justification for a novel methodology. It's a justification the
current philosophy of Science CAN'T do but with discussion, it
will. == Well, I think what they're trying to do is the
opposite: Focus on unfalsifiable claims and grant them validity
by a novel wording of Theory that's philosophically justifiable.
== Science was once Natural Philosophy. It has to return to its
roots to get a redefinition so it can progress to another level
of operation. === I got it bookmarked. I scanned the comments
section to get a feel for it. Looks like it's got all the
science popularizers and superstars all in one place. I call 'em
the Science Bishops smile emoticon == Oh I know - their
differences make them funny to watch. I've seen a few of them
together before and the minutia they argue over is funny as
hell. But they're generally same-page about the Bulk.. pun
intended tongue emoticon == Oh I know - their differences make
them funny to watch. I've seen a few of them together before and
the minutia they argue over is funny as hell. But they're
generally same-page about the Bulk.. pun intended tongue
emoticon == I noticed increasing consistency on the Science
channel about 3 years ago. It was like a weird convergence on
certain things that before they would've separated on. I also
noticed some commenters vanish from sight and others get more
focus. [I remember when Krauss was just an occasional]. Anyway,
after a while, I got tired of the same 11-12 faces so I stopped
watching the channel. But I was obsessed with it for a few years
before that. ==
