ruveyn wrote:
ryan93 wrote:
I guess if the theory accurately explains sub-microscopic events there is no need to actually "look" for the strings/branes themselves.
Not so fast. There might be an alternative theory that explains just the same set of facts.
Just because a theory happens to fit a finite set of facts or observations does not mean it is correct. A further fact might be discovered that refutes the the theory. That is why ALL scientific theories must be held as provisional. There is no guarantee that a refuting fact will not be uncovered tomorrow or even later on today.
ruveyn
I would not deny any of the above. As soon as a Theory fails to meet the facts, it should be relegated to a lesser position (as in Newtons laws of Gravity) or discarded. But as long as a theory meets the current observations, then we can regard it as an accurate description of the world around us.
People construct models to describe reality, so we can regard them as true models until we have reason to believe otherwise (of course, the theory needs to be proven to a high degree first).
If two alternate theories are both exactly as complex (so Occam's Razor has no place to bite into) account for the same data, they are both equally as "true".
_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger
Member of the WP Strident Atheists