Silversoul said:

I was just thinking about how ideas like string theory and dark matter don't really conform to the scientific method, yet they're widely accepted by credible scientists. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. I think we're starting to see a new era in science in which scientists are realizing that while the scientific method is the best known tool for testing the validity of ideas, it has its limitations, and that science can actually still be science without necessarily being confinced to it. It seems like we're entering a sort of "post-science" period, in which mathematical models can be used for figuring out things that can't be tested in the traditional way. Thoughts?

---

ictoasnrnsigwt said:

Scientists used mathimatical equations to come up with the string theory which created the sigularity which they in turn had to create an equation to solve so now there is M theory. Atleast thats how I remember it; feel free to correct me.

---

trendal said:

I disagree.

We are at a point in the development of science where theory has pushed beyond experimentation, that's all. During times where new, unexpected experimental results are few and far between, scientists will tend to start theorizing more freely than they might when they have a great deal of experimental data to use. That's what we're seeing now.

Our technology has progressed far enough for us to validate many of our pre-existing theories in science...but not far enough to truly push the boundaries of current theories. String Theory is a great example. It's not that it doesn't follow the scientific method...it's just that we are unable to perform any experiments on string theory because of technological limitations. When/if those limitations are lifted by new tech, we will either validate String Theory or cast it aside for an entirely new theory.

---

Science is still science.


Peace.

MushmanTheManic said:

How does someone really go about measuring "attention span"?

Probably using an EEG.

---

Quote:

modern psychology/psychiatry has become less and less objective and now works solely on the premise of textbook "normalcy" and flat-out ignores or fails to attempt to discover CAUSE

Granted, Gelstat eventually dissappeared into the fog of subjectivism, but Behaviorism seems too objective for its own good. Cognitive-behavior therapy and especially Psychoanalysis are both subjective, but both deal with practice more than theory. Humans are dynamic beings and these therapies reflect that.

---

Quote:

Plus, some of psychological theory has been reduced to neurophysiology, and physiology seems awfully objective.

---

Quote:

continuing to barrel forward trying to "cure" effects which "are often a culmination of biochemistry, environment and behaviour".

I'm not aware of any human traits that aren't a combination of heredity and environment. What else do you expect?

---

Silversoul said:

I was just thinking about how ideas like string theory and dark matter don't really conform to the scientific method, yet they're widely accepted by credible scientists.  I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing.  I think we're starting to see a new era in science in which scientists are realizing that while the scientific method is the best known tool for testing the validity of ideas, it has its limitations, and that science can actually still be science without necessarily being confinced to it.  It seems like we're entering a sort of "post-science" period, in which mathematical models can be used for figuring out things that can't be tested in the traditional way.  Thoughts?

---

Both string theory and dark matter theories totally confrom to scientific method, in theroy.

The problem is that our advancement into technological implementations of string theory and dark matter theories are many ceturies out of reach. We have been stuck buliding expensive technologies that are based upon applied point-particle physics. No one can afford a galaxy of enegry focused upon a single point that could directly verfy the exitence of strings.

Of course there is always the unlikely scenario of an astromoner seeing a macroscopic string that has been expanded in size due to space time warping and quantum fluxutuations that theoritically would  make a string visible through a powerful enough telescope.

Our logical anaylisis and intellect coupled with rough gueesses and accidental breakthroughs mean that we stumble helplessley in a desperate attempt to understand the "fabric" of the universe, not realizing that when matter collides with anti-matter, anti-matter is not destoyed becuase it has exactly the oppisite qualities to matter .Therefore it could be that immortal, immaterial consideration of the formless realms which the great mahasiddhas have been teaching about for centurires.

But now with string thoery one can speculate that if the smallest phenomenon that exists within this material realm is in fact of string like configuration, then there are 11 dimensions, 7 of which are curled up in on each other.

M-theory (which is based upon string theory) suggests that there are infinte universes, which is also held up by Tibetan Buddhist scripture related to Guru Padmasambhava which states that there are infinite world systems, and inifite universes, each with omnipotent beings manifesting in each dimension, for benefiting the evolution of conciosuness. Inifinite in a sense that the formless, anti-material aspect has the unlimited potential for manifetstation. Krishnas call it the expansion of the supreme lord, Buddha called it enlightened activity, but when one wakes up from distraction it is entirely liberating regardless of religious inclination.

So really i think that it is science that it catching up to eastern religions and philosophy, by two means. One, through speculation, and Two through the use of logical analysis. But we have no epxerimental verification of string theory at the momeent, which is sad. If only we could use Arjunas nuclear wepaons (which are spoken of in the vedas) to raise money for research materials!

MushmanTheManic said:

the studies that lead up to the conclusions which formed those therapies does not reflect the dynamic of human emotion and thought.

What? First you say the studies are too subjective and semi-scientific, now you're saying they're not subjective enough and too scientific?

---

Quote:

Can you name any other branch of professional doctors that deal with the quality of human life where mere theories allow unsound practices to be carried out on the unsuspecting populous under the guise of rigorous scientific study?

Physicians.

---

Quote:

Every single study in the realm of neurophysiology regarding mental illness ends up stating that the cause of Illness X is a mixture of environment, genetics, physiology and external factors

First off, I don't see why you have a problem with this concept. Do you think certian human traits are not effected by heredity or environment? Secondly, that is true of nearly any illness, not just a psychological illness. Cancer seems like an excellent example. Heredity and environment both play a role in a persons risk for cancer, why should a neurological disorder be any different?

---

Quote:

that is because psychiatry/psychology cannot accept the concept of autonomous consciousness.

Behaviorists cannot, but all the other schools do.

---

Quote:

3) you are powerless to overcome this horrible illness by yourself.

Incorrect. One of the main focuses of most psychotherapy (CBT, REBT, etc) is emphasizing that the patient, sometimes going as far as saying only the patient, can overcome their illness. Unfortunately, most patients are unwilling to take time out of their busy lifestyle to work towards changing themselves, they'd rather just take a pill.

---