@zultar

I wouldn't necessarily always consider it a different theory then the existing one if it only explains the same data in a simpler fashion. It might just be a reformulation of the same theory. For instance Hamiltonian mechanics versus Newtonian mechanics, the former being the same theory with just a different (simpler) mathematical approach. You can still call that superior of course though.

But yeah, in cases where the new theory really is different and simpler then Occam's razor suggests that it should replace the existing one.

I don't disagree there, semck. It might be better to say then "conceptually or mathematically simpler" instead of just simpler. I was just saying that for physicists, it's mostly more about what the math says instead of what is conceptually easier, take for example quantum mechanics or gravity. For gravity, conceptually it is easier to explain that everything falls down to the ground; humans understood it that way for thousands of years. It just doesn't work when we start looking at the bigger picture.

"Still, if a new theory doesn't fit the existing data then in order for it to be taken seriously it must have some testable hypothesis to explain the discrepancy"

This is the flaw in the scientific method based notions of science and why I say string theorists should ignore doctrinaire scientism. It does not allow for speculation. In fields where observation is difficult, coming up with "testable hypotheses" can be well nigh impossible in the short-term. Yet I hardly think we need to discard string theory because of this rigidity.

"1. Explain the data in a "simpler" fashion (this mostly means mathematically for me since I was trained as a physicist).
2. Be able to predict something that the other theory could not, or predict something correctly that the other theory couldn't."

Darwinian theory would not meet either criteria, so I can't agree.

Putting this all back in the context of string theory, the problem there I think is that string theorists have failed to make a clear case that their theory is conceptually OR mathematically simpler, OR that it makes novel predictions (or explains new phenomena).

They argue that it is cleaner, but it seems to come down to a sense of mathematical aesthetics. As I said earlier, I'm a little on the fence. My sense is that they have not really made a conclusive case at this point, but have done enough to merit more work, although probably not in the directions they seem to be going.

(One of the biggest problems facing string theory, which they seem to have given up on largely, is that there are really 10^500 different string theories, which are inequivalent, but for which nobody has come up with a selection mechanism between. This is something of a disaster given their earlier goals of addressing the failure of uniqueness in prior theories due to arbitrary constants).

This is way out of my element, but didn't the recent BICEP2 experiment validate cosmic inflation and string theory models? Or why were string theorists so pumped about it?

The string theorists were pumped about it because they like inflation because some versions of it give the closest hint so far of some kind of "multiverse," and a much stronger type of multiverse is currently believed by many of them to be necessary for string theory, given the 10^500 problem above. Or at least, that's why some were pumped. I can't speak for all.

However, the BICEP2 experiment in question turned out to be resting on misinterpreted data, and is now widely considered just to have been seeing galactic dust. I need to go catch a bus, but if you google, I'm sure you'll find what I'm saying.

It is said that the star dust issue would likely be verified definitively in October by the next Planck report. Interesting.

http://www.nature.com/news/gravitational-wave-team-admits-findings-could-amount-to-dust-1.15440

In the dim and distant past I remember my first meeting with my supervisor. I was very much given the single message that we should ‘’go wherever the data takes us’’. That bit of advice has stayed with me and, at times, it is very tough. The literature of confirmation bias in the sciences is extensive; here is a classic blind study of papers submitted for review, which embarrassingly exposes the biases of the peer reviewers:
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/gpr/2/2/175/
It is my contention that those subjects which set out to measure humans in terms of social organisation, social reactions, social structural formulations etc. are intrinsically more exposed to possible bias. This is because the data collectors and analysers are more likely not to be able to free themselves from the preconceived ideas or, heaven forbid, have a vested, perhaps personal political, interest in their results. I agree that this is a danger in all fields of research, however, the danger must be magnified when ‘’we’’, in the widest sense, are the subject of the work.

Hence, although for example anatomy and archaeology both have human beings as their subjects, the latter is intrinsically more exposed to confirmation (or, come to that, aggression) bias than the former.

Let me teach you guys a song or let this guy http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UID5GYLI_LK lol

You have to have theory before you even know what data you're looking for. All knowledge has normative content to it. Even selecting the object of study is a normative choice.

The notion that any discipline is somehow less prone to politicization is false. Geologists mostly seem to work for fossil fuel and mining companies. Is their work less "biased" just because they study minerals and not people?

And what does your confirmation bias hobby horse have to do with whether something is a science or not?

Putin does have a point.

Science is necessarily a politicised field as the funding behind it is highly political, sometimes with absurd consequences. At a big scientific meeting in the Netherlands the head of a funding organisation laid down the policy for future research funding. Nuclear physics is no longer popular, so funding was reduced in that area, fusion on the other hand should receive more funding, owing to its promise of clean, inexhaustible source of energy.

On another note, here is an old article in German about the definition of mass and the attempt to find meaningful relations without referring to Newton's law. The point is that it may be possible in simple cases to look for data without knowing the underlying theory, but it seems much harder than with prior knowledge.

W. Muschik and W. Ludwig, Zum Newtonschen Bewegungsgesetz, Physikalische Blätter 31, 166-172 (1975)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/phbl.19750310405

I agree with Putin: the fact that scientists are human and thus fallible doesn't make them less scientist (or their field less a of a science). If you give a kid 5 toys and they count them: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6. Then is their activity not still counting even though they make a mistake? Sure it is. The same is true for scientists and confirmation bias, they are still practicing science even though on occasion they make mistakes, confirmation bias being one such source of mistakes.

Now, while we're on the topic of confirmation bias...

People that study (or at least express their opinions about) confirmation bias, such as fullham in this thread, are not themselves exempt from confirmation bias as they often seem to think themselves. In fact, in my experience, they are often very prone to having confirmation bias about confirmation bias. Religious nuts are IMO the most prominent example of this. They will cry "Confirmation bias!!!" whenever anyone presents any data that would confirm that no, the Earth is not merely a couple of thousands year old; and no men and dinosaurs did not coexists; and yes, biological diversity did come about through evolution by natural selection; and yes human kind is just one species of the family of great apes just like chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans; and yes Bible story do heavily borrow from pre-existing mythologies. As a result they often (incorrectly) seem to see confirmation bias mostly in sciences that relate to these subject areas such as biology, history, archeology, geology and paleontology, while they rarely target other fields of science with their criticisms of confirmation bias. I'd say that this makes them one of the most clear practical examples of confirmation bias at work.

I think that the thing about confirmation bias is that we all need to be aware of it. Presumably we can all agree on that? It is tough to analyse one's own activities for bias, but in my view it is absolutely required. We differ on the ease, or otherwise, of applying this to particular disciplines.

I am not sure what oscar's diversion into the atheist/theist debate was all about in this context. However, in the spirit of the debate, and not wishing to derail this particular thread, perhaps it might be best to move on without further comment from me.

Aw, fullham didn't bite. I'm so sad now. :-(

Sorry to disappoint, maybe try debating on the new alternative forum instead if trolling is what floats your boat.

I'm sure he's compiling an epic list of irrelevant links coupled with a series of misleading questions insinuating evil deeds by scientists. You know, where the "data takes him". He'll be back here sending us down his rabbit holes in no time.

"I am not sure what oscar's diversion into the atheist/theist debate was all about in this context. However, in the spirit of the debate, and not wishing to derail this particular thread,"

And nobody's sure what your diversion into confirmation bias has to do with whether something is a science or not.

And so the insults start. Catch you later Putin.

Seriously? As soon as someone questions your contribution to a discussion you feel insulted? Must suck to be you. lol

Read your self admitted troll post combo at 9.51 and 10.22. QED

Then read your friend's post at 10.36. QED

Follow this up with your most recent post at 11.50.

If, for whatever reason you might have, you want a slanging match, then find somebody else. I am not interested.

What were you interested in? Clearly not the topic of conversation.

From my post on the top page of the thread until now I think that my posts stand.

In fact so do yours. It is crystal clear from your first direct response to me at 10.06 yesterday evening exactly what your agenda is. A shame and terrifc waste of energy; never mind.

Yes it is a waste of energy to expect you to answer a simple straightforward question about the relevance of your posts.

Probably is if you mix things up with more than a fair dollop of insults. Maybe you should use some variety of flagging system so we can differentiate. Highs and lows, eh?

Please, get a room. This used to be a cool thread.

Apologies, but I think it is clear where the trouble originated.