Talk:171: String Theory
It should be noted that positive predictions are not sound scientific methodology. "If X, then Y will happen" doesn't prove X, because W and Q may also cause Y. You need falsifiability, the ability to disprove your model if it's wrong, in order to produce even a sound theory. Because of this, not only is string hypothesis not really sound science, but neither is a lot of Quantum Mechanics, which successfully predicts in sync with observations in a way that doesn't exclude other causes for the same outcomes. The geocentric model had a slightly better positive prediction success rate than quantum mechanics does...and they were wrong. Like the geocentric model, QM mostly made bad predictions at first, but its failures are constantly propped up with epicycles and deferents. Positivism and instrumentalism are bad science, and generally will lead knowledge in the wrong direction. β Kazvorpal (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The above comment makes a subtle mistake, which I hope to correct in an enlightening manner. 1. Theories are frameworks to predict, not truths of the world. Theories are math designed to produce the same results as reality. 2. Frameworks can't be proven, just disproven. What matters is whether they are useful. For example, Newtonian mechanics is still taught because it is still useful (it is only very slightly wrong at low speeds and gravities, with much simpler math than SR or GR). Quantum mechanics is very useful; its math well encapsulates the behavior of things on small scales, and this has been used to great effect (lasers, computer hardware design, advanced chemistry, etc.) --172.68.35.114 05:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
