Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 4185917" data-attributes="member: 177">Well, of course not - it is Wikipedia not "The Authoritative Source for Everything".  It got the basics down.  The subtleties are left as an exercise for the reader <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  Um, I think we may be talking past each other here.  To me, this is a matter of definition - calling math an empirical science is like calling an orange a poodle.  Empirical science compares a theory to collected real-world data as a check of the accuracy of the model.  Mathematics cannot do this, as mathematics itself makes no claims on what real-world data it should be checked against. A theory in a formal system can be proved or disproved with respect to that formal system, and that's all.  There is no experiment, no taking of data, no observation of reality is required, or even called for.  It is thus not possible for it to be empirical, by definition of the word "empirical". Just so you know - my thesis work was on computer modeling of spin propagation in high-energy jet formation.  I know whereof you speak here.It still remains -  if the theory does not make predictions that can be tested, it does not sit in the realm of empirical science.  It may sit outside for practical reasons ("Sorry, the technology to make the measurements you want doe snot yet exist"), or it may sit outside for more fundamental reasons.  But if it cannot be falsified, it isn't empirical science, because what folks call the scientific method cannot be applied.That doesn't make it unimportant.  Or easy.  Or fake.  It doesn't make the people who do it any less hard-working.  It may be that some version of string theory will, in time, come into the empirical realm.  But as far as I'm aware, none of them are there yet.  As far as I'm aware, they're all still in the formal realm - a formal realm that's informed by empirical theories, but not yet emerged to the measurable.That's okay - the same was true for General Relativity once upon a time.</blockquote>

Verification