I have zero standing to opine as to the accuracy of this. But presumably some of you tall foreheads and deep thinkers can explain it to those of use who can't perform Laplace Transformations in our heads.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physics-particles-physicists?ref=The+Browser-newsletter
I'll say she's wrong about Zoology. There are in fact Cryptozoology conferences that traffic in the search for critters that we have no evidence for beyond myth, legend, and the internet rumor mill.
But that is totally fringe.
There is some relation to Economics, as shown by the following old joke, which contains some elements of truth:
A mathematician, a theoretical economist, and an econometrician are asked to find a black cat (which doesn't
really exist) in a closed room with the lights off:
- The mathematician goes crazy trying to find a black cat that doesn't exist inside the darkened room and
ends up in a psychiatric hospital.
- The theoretical economist is unable to catch the black cat that doesn't exist inside the darkened room, but
exits the room proudly proclaiming that he can construct a model to describe all its movements with
extreme accuracy.
- The econometrician walks stoutly into the darkened room, spends an hour looking for the black cat that
doesn't exist and shouts from inside the room that he has caught it by the neck.
i don't have a problem with people proposing a sensible theoretical construct for dark matter particles, and then having a search for those using LHC. Its simple, if they aren't discovered, ever, then they most probably don't exist. Its like searching for extraterrestrial life. Its reasonable to propose that it exists, but as time goes on, we have better and better ways of finding the sort of evidence that would indicate life (intelligent or otherwise) on a planet or elsewhere. if we never find that evidence, it gets harder and harder to say that "life exists out there. We just haven't seen it yet." Of course that *could be* true, but it gets harder to believe.
Quote from: Ruralguy on October 25, 2022, 12:56:22 PM
i don't have a problem with people proposing a sensible theoretical construct for dark matter particles, and then having a search for those using LHC. Its simple, if they aren't discovered, ever, then they most probably don't exist. Its like searching for extraterrestrial life. Its reasonable to propose that it exists, but as time goes on, we have better and better ways of finding the sort of evidence that would indicate life (intelligent or otherwise) on a planet or elsewhere. if we never find that evidence, it gets harder and harder to say that "life exists out there. We just haven't seen it yet." Of course that *could be* true, but it gets harder to believe.
I think logically that is completely correct. The difficulty is not a scientific one, it's a question of resources. If a research program, to use Lakatos' term, brings up nothing time and again, when do you stop giving it money?
Do we have to wait for a theory that says such and such cannot exist?Again, a long, long time ago it was said: The smaller the particle, the bigger the budget!
i guess when someone thinks of a better way to spend the money, the money will be spent on that. The solution to the dark matter problem is a Nobel Prize for sure, so people are willing to plug away at sonething reasonable for a few years while funding is high, but it will die off for sure, and those folks will go on to some other problem.
Quote from: Ruralguy on October 25, 2022, 03:19:26 PM
QuoteI guess when someone thinks of a better way to spend the money, the money will be spent on that.
The solution to the dark matter problem is a Nobel Prize for sure, so people are willing to plug away at something reasonable for a few years while funding is high, but it will die off for sure, and those folks will go on to some other problem.
Yup! The sociology of science is far more interesting than the philosophy of science. :-)