Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | String theory |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 04:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC) |
Requesting party | 8digits ( talk) |
Parties involved | Waleswatcher,JohnBlackburne,8digits,TR,Wpegden |
Mediator(s) | thehistorian10, ( talk) |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Predictability_and_testability
On the other hand, all string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant, unitary, and contain Einstein's General Relativity as a low energy limit.[36] Therefore, to falsify string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance, or general relativity.[37] Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable and meet the definition of scientific theory according to Karl Popper's criterion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:String_theory#Popper_testability_following_from_testability_of_dependent_theories. Wpegden ( talk) 05:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Nobody disputes the accuracy of this statement, but many think that it is a major ask to say that because in theory GR and QM can be falsified so can string theory as it contains these in a low energy limit. There is so much more to string theory then GR and QM.
Also I do not think the reference quoted for the example is good enough, its a beginners book.
Also I think the main person that wants to keep it, is using his own original research, when I asked for references it was taken out.
Also I think if this is true then I could argue that "I have a theory that an invisible collection of magical pink elephants with unlimited power exist all around us, and they use their magical power to make general relativity hold all the time. They will always do this because it is their purpose in life which they never waver from.
This theory can be falsified by showing general relativity is false. But, I do not think it is scientific in the sense of popper (it's differences with general relativity cannot be falsified."
We have had an active talk page discussion and many prior good faith attempt at dispute resolution is a bare minimum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:String_theory#Popper_and_testability
I think it should be taken out.
I would accept a mediated solution, I am not sure of the others.
Do you realise that mediation requires an open mind, collaborating together in an environment of camaraderie and mutual respect, with the understanding that to reach a solution, compromise is required?
YES
I am going to mediate this. I have asked someone to join me as a co-mediator, and this case will not be considered as officially underway until I can find a new mediator to help me (note to admins: please put this case in the "open cases" box, even though I'm still on the hunt for a second mediator). -- Thehistorian10 ( talk) 12:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE: Due to the magnitude of the original debate on the talkpage, it'll take me a while to go through it all. I'm going to ask (regardless of whether they're actually there or not) what the main arguments are, so that they can be dealt with in turn - it makes life a lot easier, especially on such a large dispute. For example, are you disagreeing over whether something is original research or not, or is there something I'm not understanding?-- Thehistorian10 ( talk) 15:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
My position is that nothing in the text as it is now constitutes original research or violates any wiki guideline I'm aware of, and that everything in it is both correct and adequately cited (even more so now with the addition of the PRL citation on falsifying string theory). Because it's more or less the only statement that doesn't appear almost verbatim in the citations, I think if the phrase "and meet the definition of scientific theory according to Karl Popper's criterion" was deleted from the article with no other change, there would then be no grounds for discussion whatsoever. For the purposes of advancing the discussion it might be fruitful to first get agreement that the mention of Popper is the only thing at issue, and then proceed on that point. Waleswatcher ( talk) 15:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I presume you two know of the rule surrounding Citations? I quote:
By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable other editors and readers to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia and showing that the material is not original research. You also help readers find additional information on the subject; and you avoid committing plagiarism (by giving credit to the source of your words or ideas).
In particular, sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged – if reliable sources cannot be found for challenged material, it is likely to be removed from the article. Sources are also required when quoting someone, with or without quotation marks, or closely paraphasing a source. However, the citing of sources is not limited to those situations – editors are always encouraged to add or improve citations for any information contained in an article.
...
Inline citations allow the reader to associate a given bit of material in an article with the specific reliable source(s) that support the material. Inline citations are most commonly added using either footnotes (long or short) or parenthetical references. This section describes how to add either type, and also describes how to create a "general references" section that can be used to support shortened footnotes or parenthetical references.
...
Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself.
...
If a claim is doubtful but not harmful, use the citation needed template, which will add an inline tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time.
Take especial note of the thing about plagiarism. It goes against all of Wikipedia's policies. I think the general rule goes that if you casnnot find a reliable source, then take the sentence out.
As for the actual problem we have, I do not consider the statement re: Popper and the falsification of string theory to be obvious. I am not a physicist, and I would like to read more about that. As the article currently stands, I cannot do so. Therefore, to avoid having othr readers in the same quandary as myself, I would suggest that - until a citation is found - the text is deleted. -- Thehistorian10 ( talk) 09:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you be a little bit more explicit about which part of the statement you think should be deleted? The first part - that string theory is falsifiable for the reasons given - is stated explicitly in two citations that are already included in the article. The second part - that therefore string theory models meet the definition of scientific theory according to Popper - is not stated explicitly in any citation I know of. Is it only the second part you have a problem with, or the whole thing?
Regarding the second part, it is stated explicitly in many citations that string theory is falsifiable and that Popper's criterion for science is falsifiability. It is also stated in several citations (I can add them if needed) that general relativity is Popper falsifiable, and that string theory contains general relativity, and that falsifying general relativity falsifies string theory. Given that information - and perhaps it's not stated clearly enough in the article as it is now - wouldn't you consider it obvious that string theory is Popper falsifiable? Waleswatcher ( talk) 15:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with the mediation process. What's the next step here? I'm starting to think that Waleswatcher's belief that the statement is obvious and should be included is not "falsifiable", to borrow a term. Wpegden ( talk) 23:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Haha, very funny. After all, it's usually hard to falsify things that aren't false!
I don't know what the steps are either, but we're obviously a ways from done based on Thehistorian10's comment: "I am going to mediate this. I have asked someone to join me as a co-mediator, and this case will not be considered as officially underway until I can find a new mediator to help me" Meanwhile PLEASE stop editing the article, it's been that way for years, letting it stay for a few days isn't going to do any harm, and especially considering that 8digits opened this case and it's not resolved, any changes are premature and not really in good faith. Waleswatcher ( talk) 00:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Waleswatcher, I'd like to re-examine one important sentence in one of your numerous replies:
“Several sources already state explicitly that string theory is falsifiable. Other sources state that Popper's criterion for science is falsifiability”
I have read the article, and those "sources" you mention are not provided anywhere within the article. Therefore, how I am meant to judge where you got your info from? If your argument stands - that such sources exist, regardless of whether they are actually cited - then we could have lots of articles saying stupid things like "pink elephants exist", without there being any citations for that claim. If such a claim was disputed, the article author could just say "several sources already explicitly state that pink elephants exist", even though there are no physical references in the article. Therefore, to avoid such problems arising in the future, I would like anything to do with the (alleged) falsifiability of string theory to be removed, until such a time as sources - which can be agreed on by ALL parties in this dispute - are found. That is my final word on the matter. However, if you wish to continue this dispute, note that I will take my leave of absence from official Wikipedia duties as of approx. 4pm (GMT) tomorrow, Tuesday 21 December, and I will not return until 5 January 2012 at 9am. Therefore, as of 4pm tomorrow, all debate on this matter is closed indefinitely or suspended for the Christmas holidays.
I wish you all a Merry Christmas.
-- Thehistorian10 ( talk) 16:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi; I agreed to help out Thehistorian10 with mediation. I would suggest that we don't need to worry too much about fixed dates and deadlines and submissions here, because (a) I'm online almost continuously so things won't crash and burn at times when Thehistorian10 isn't around, and (b) medcab is usually a little more informal. As long as we're making progress, I'm happy. bobrayner ( talk) 03:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Bob, so long as you're willing to sit to one side, watch, and growl at me (or step in) when things look like they're getting too heavy, or I'm floundering or doing something wrong, then we (may) all be happy.
I just want to make sure of something. Technically, I'm supposed to be taking a Christmas leave of absence from Wikiduties, but because of this little problem, I've cut short my holiday. I'm not really going to be available on December 25, 26, or 27,and I'll resume full duties on approx. December 28. During the dates when I'm gone, Bob should be able to do my job for me.
Another thing, I am going to assume that we basically got up to the last argument BEFORE deadlines were being set (i.e. after all the responses to that stuff about WP:CITE - where Waleswatcher stated "...your criteria is thus fulfilled"), OK? -- Thehistorian10 ( talk) 18:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
[Part of these remarks were on this page before but deleted for some reason... perhaps it was in the wrong place? Anyways, I thought I would add them back since they are still current with respect to the dispute.]
I will keep it simple: Waleswatcher has not produced a single source that mentions both Popper and String theory. Nevertheless he wants to include a statement that string theory is "falsifiable in the sense of Popper" or "scientific according to Popper's criterion". This means he is doing original research. He thinks it is trivial research, because he has sources which use the word falsifiable to describe string theory (while not mentioning the many other sources describing it as possibly unfalsifiable) and because he has sources that say that falsifiable is Popper's criterion for whether something is scientific. Unfortunately, it is original research to combine these into the statement he wants to make. (For example, how do you know both people mean the same thing when the say "falsifiable"?). I think that if there is no source---anywhere---that Walsewatcher has been able to find which says that "string theory is scientific in the sense of Popper", then we can't have the statement that "string theory is scientific in the sense of Popper" in the article. This discussion has meandered a lot and sometimes gone down complicated paths, but I think the original research issue is simple and clear. We should always be skeptical of people saying that it is okay to have something in Wikipedia without a citation. How could it be acceptable that Wikipedia would be the only source of the information that string theory is scientific according to Popper's criterion?
The irony here, is that it is actually no trouble at all to find sources that mention both Popper and String theory. I encourage everyone to try this. Just do a search for Popper and string theory on scholar.google.com or books.google.com. The reason Waleswatcher hasn't brought any of these sources up is that all the potential sources you will find make the opposite point of the one Waleswatcher wants the Wikipedia article to make without a citation.)
Here's a good thought experiment to carry out. Imagine that Waleswatcher tomorrow manages to what he has so far been unable to: namely, find sources which explicitly say that string theory is scientific according to Popper's criterion. What sentence would go in the article at that point? Since we have good sources which take the opposite position (such as This article, written by a string theorist), we could only have a sentence like this: "Some sources believe that string theory is not scientific according to Popper's criterion, while others disagree" (or vice versa) and then give sources on both sides. We still couldn't have the sentence Waleswatcher wants. In fact, the only related sentence we have citations to write right now is the sentence "string theory is not scientific according to Popper's criterion", which is the exact opposite of the sentence Waleswatcher wants the article to have, even though he has not even one source which explicitly takes that position. Wpegden ( talk) 16:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd like you to read the last comment I made in the "arbitry break" section, then you'll understand why I deleted your previous comments. I am ready to mark this case as closed, being as the suggestions made here for improving the article seem to have been accepted. Are there any final comments from any of the participants or from bobrayner? -- Thehistorian10 ( talk) 18:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the discussion will be aided if we have an alternative paragraph to discuss the comparable merits of. Here is a suggestion for a proposed replacement:
It seems like something along these lines is the only thing we are going to be able to have. We can't be deciding who is correct among the sources when there is a dispute there, we just have to say the dispute exists and say what the positions of both sides are. The "citation needed" tag is in the paragraph because I'm not sure what the best citation is for this sentence. I'm open to suggestions (or even putting this in the article with the tag in place while we give ourselves time to find a good one). Do the mediators have any comments on this suggestion, or suggestions for improvement? Thanks! Wpegden ( talk) 16:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
That will be sufficient. I think we are reaching an impasse. So long as whomever puts the paragraph into the article follows the rule of WP:CITE, then I have no problem. I would like, however, that the final paragraph (including citations) be approved by both mediators. Basically, I would like to see the final paragraph as it would be in the article. I will then put the paragraph (in its final form) to the other participants in this case. If we all agree, then the case will be closed and marked as resolved. If not, then we'll have to think of something else.
-- Thehistorian10 ( talk) 17:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's the current language:
Finding a way to confirm string theory with our current technology is a major challenge,[35] Primarily this is due to the ultra-small size of the Planck length, which is expected to be close to the string length (the characteristic size of a string, where strings become easily distinguishable from particles). Another issue is the huge number of metastable vacua of string theory. These vacua might be sufficiently diverse to accommodate almost any phenomena we might observe at lower energies. Some critics argue that these issues make string theory de-facto untestable. On the other hand, all string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant,[36] unitary, and contain Einstein's General Relativity as a low energy limit.[37] Therefore, to falsify[38] string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance,[36] or general relativity.[39] Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable.[36] But to constitute a convincing verification of string theory, a prediction should be specific to it, not shared by any quantum field theory model or by General Relativity.
This differs from the language when this mediation started in that it's missing the phrase "and meet the definition of scientific theory according to Karl Popper's criterion" following "falsifiable". My proposal is that we restore that phrase (which was removed by someone during this mediation), basically returning to the consensus version from several years ago but with additional cites (the version that remained unchanged for years until 8digits began his/her edits). I think we have established very thoroughly that it is adequately cited and does not violate any of wiki's guidelines (not to mention that it's true). Even with the Popper phrase included, this language still significantly overstates the case against the testability/falsifiability/scientific status of string theory. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The real problem here is that you aren't making a coherent argument. Every time I address an issue you've raised, you shift ground to something new and pretend the previous issue never happened. I don't see any end to that.
This is precisely what I anticipated at the beginning of this mediation process - that you (and 8digits) would continue the practice of goal-post shifting that was already a problem on the talk page. That's why I asked at the very beginning that we focus on a specific issue. My proposal was that we determine whether the language in the article as it was did or did not violate wikipedia's guidelines. I think we have now established that it does not violate any guidelines. In response, you have completely flipflopped your position. You've gone from "I don't question that ST is falsifiable, but I think the phrase mentioning Popper is original research" and "Popper isn't relevant or sufficiently interesting in an article on string theory, so shouldn't be mentioned" (those aren't direct quotes, but I'm happy to provide them if you dispute their accuracy) to "ST isn't falsifiable after all" and "Let's expand the brief mention of Popper to an entire section".
I can go through all of the references you list above and point out precisely why each one doesn't support your position or isn't relevant. But frankly, I'm fed up, because every time I do that you just shift ground again. Your assertions about the Distler et al reference is a perfect example. You claimed that the Distler ref doesn't support the assertion that ST is falsifiable. When I pointed out (twice) that Distler et all specifically and directly contradicts you, you suddenly moved on to something else. It just doesn't look like you're arguing in good faith here, and I'm losing patience.
There is no debate that string theory reduces to GR, is Lorentz invariant, and is quantum mechanical. There is no debate that those are falsifiable theories. There is no debate that if one of those was falsified, string theory would be falsified too. The debate is over whether string theory makes any NEW predictions, predictions unique to ST that don't follow from those three together, that can be falsified with current or near-future tech. That is a real issue, it's important, and it should be - and is! - addressed in the article. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, there was no goal-shifting. After I laid down the law which we would be working by (WP:CITE), Wpidgeon - as far as I can see - followed that law to the letter. He has provided sources. I am not willing to go through the sources in great detail, but because one of them is written by Popper himself, and another is written by a Cantabrian (Cambridge Professor), and yet another is written in a high-quality journal, I am willing to accept them as authoritative. Further, there was, and still is, no case of Wpidgeon ever saying that Popper was unreliable - in fact, I believe that had he his way, Popper would be one of the principal sources for that entire section. No, I believe, Waleswatcher, that you are doing these things: 1) rapidly changing your arguments, to give the mediator/s more work than necessary 2) contradicting yourself and thus not making sense 3) attempting to draw out the case insofar that we will all be so bored and confused that we'll agree with anything that you say.
I can promise you that none of the above will work. I have sat through this case for the past 3-4 weeks. I am not yet confused, bored or tired - I can understand the proceedings. You rapidly change your arguments so that you can either attempt to contradict whatever Wpidgeon is saying, or, failing that, you attempt to claim that Wpidgeon is contradicting himself. From the arguments I read above, Wpidgeon's arguments are very fluid. Yours are not - sometimes, I get lost in your arguments.
As for the article proposal, I like the idea. I am quite happy to accept the proposal as authoritative, and to wind up this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehistorian10 ( talk • contribs)
After reading your comment twice, I am honestly wondering if you have confused the two of us. None of Wpegden's cites are by Popper, and his position from the beginning was that Popper is not even relevant to this article! Are you perhaps referring to the cite to Popper that I added? I added that citation to the article weeks ago, along with another, to Distler - citations that you evidently still have not looked at. As for Wpegden's Tong cite, in the sentence just preceding the one quoted Tong says "...if we're looking for convincing evidence that string theory describes the world in which we live" - so he is discussing the issue of what new predictions string theory makes, a very important issue that is already discussed in the article, but not the predictions it makes that are shared with other theories. The same goes for the other references Wpegden has above, not one of which contradicts or even challenges the fact that ST incorporates other, falsifiable theories as limits or properties.
As for goal-post shifting, I defy you to find even one example where I changed my arguments even slightly. I have focussed on the issue on which this mediation was requested from the very beginning (if that phrase constitutes original research), and tried my best to get it addressed. The very first thing I did here was try to get clarity on what exactly was the issue, precisely to avoid the situation that has now occurred.
And I'm trying to draw out the case? I thought it was basically done, and was satisfied - and then at the last minute, long after the date when you said arguments should be finished, Wpegden suddenly shifted ground, flipping from "we shouldn't even mention Popper" to "we should add a whole new section" - one that muddles and misrepresents the facts, I might add.
You said you like the idea of "the article proposal" - which proposal? Mine was that we keep the article as is now (including the extra cites that have been added of course), and re-insert the phrase regarding Popper more or less as it was prior to the start of this process. Is that the proposal you mean? Waleswatcher (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I am going slightly mad. OK, I noted that Wpedgen is the one who suggested rewriting the disputed passage. I further note that I have been blaming the wrong person (Wpedgen) rather than Waleswatcher. As for your question as to which suggestion I like, see the quote:
"Finding a way to confirm string theory with our current technology is a major challenge,[35] Primarily this is due to the ultra-small size of the Planck length, which is expected to be close to the string length (the characteristic size of a string, where strings become easily distinguishable from particles). Another issue is the huge number of metastable vacua of string theory. These vacua might be sufficiently diverse to accommodate almost any phenomena we might observe at lower energies. Some critics argue that these issues make string theory de-facto untestable. On the other hand, all string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant,[36] unitary, and contain Einstein's General Relativity as a low energy limit.[37] Therefore, to falsify[38] string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance,[36] or general relativity.[39] Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable.[36] But to constitute a convincing verification of string theory, a prediction should be specific to it, not shared by any quantum field theory model or by General Relativity."
I have reviewed the discussions above, and I can find no evidence to substantiate my claims. I will not withdraw my Mediator's Commission, because we are too far into this case for a new mediator to pick it up and understand it quickly, but I will issue a public apology which will remain on this page.
I like the above article because it follows the groundules I set forth (WP:CITE), and it follows the rules about NPOV as well. -- Thehistorian10 ( talk) 11:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Thehistorian10, thanks for that. Apology accepted. I think we're getting close to a conclusion, but there is still an open question. The original (i.e. at the start of this mediation) language was what you approved, plus one additional phrase that mentioned Popper. Here it is:
"Finding a way to confirm string theory with our current technology is a major challenge,[35] Primarily this is due to the ultra-small size of the Planck length, which is expected to be close to the string length (the characteristic size of a string, where strings become easily distinguishable from particles). Another issue is the huge number of metastable vacua of string theory. These vacua might be sufficiently diverse to accommodate almost any phenomena we might observe at lower energies. Some critics argue that these issues make string theory de-facto untestable. On the other hand, all string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant,[36] unitary, and contain Einstein's General Relativity as a low energy limit.[37] Therefore, to falsify[38] string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance,[36] or general relativity.[39] Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable[36] and meet the definition of scientific theory according to Karl Popper's criterion [cite to Popper]. But to constitute a convincing verification of string theory, a prediction should be specific to it, not shared by any quantum field theory model or by General Relativity."
From the very beginning, I tried to get clarity on the phrase "and meet the definition of scientific theory according to Karl Popper's criterion", since that seemed to be the main point of disagreement. My contention was and still is that that phrase does not constitute OR and is adequately cited, because: (1) string theory has properties XYZ (cited), (2) XYZ are falsifiable (cited) and therefore so is string theory (cited), and (3) Popper's criterion for scientific theories is falsifiable (cited). Could you please give your opinion on the language above, including that phrase? Thank you. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, this will get confusing. The case is near closure - I accept that. This case will, at the current rate, go onwards until eternity with the two main editors (Waleswatcher and Wpedgen) squabbling, and we will never reach a situation which will be wholly acceptable to the pair of you.
As for the final Question submitted, wherein it states: "evaluate whether the sentence "string theory is falsifiable" can be stated in the article as fact, since the sources marked XXX above appear reliable and appear to directly contradict it. Doesn't this violate NPOV?"
I have explored the rules set out by NPOV, wherein it states: · Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
· Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
· Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
· Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone." Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE
I am sorry about the long citation, but, the article paragraph in dispute - with that one sentence - violates points two and four of the above bullet points. Saying that X (string theory) is always falsifiable, without exploring that claim nor substantiating it, is judgemental language, as it seems to show to a reader that there are no other opinions regarding the falsifiability of string theory.
As for its violation of point two, The same rules apply as mentioned in the previous paragraph. The falsifiability of string theory - in my opinion - is a seriously contested and contestable theory which has been asserted as a fact by the use of the word "always", as if to say that string theory is definitively falsifiable.
I therefore Order and Adjudge that:
1. the Paragraph which I approved above be fully implemented into the article
2. the contested sentence ("String theory is always falsifiable") be fully removed from the article, including all sources, references and associated notes.
I hope that resolves everything for everyone involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehistorian10 ( talk • contribs)
Unfortunately it doesn't. Your two "orders" directly contradict one another. How can that paragraph be "fully implemented into the article" when it contains a sentence you want removed? To make it even more muddled, the phrase you put in quotes in item 2. actually doesn't appear anywhere in the paragraph, and neither does the word "always" that you earlier put in quotes and made a point about. So...?
On top, you say "without exploring that claim nor substantiating it" - but the sentence before the one I think you're referring to establishes the claim step by step, with each step cited, explaining and substantiating precisely how and why the conclusion (that itself appears in multiple cites) follows. In fact, there are no citations that dispute any of the steps involved. None of the "negative" citations presented so far so much as mention general relativity, quantum mechanics, or Lorentz invariance. So there is no dispute on that type of falsifiability, let alone a "serious" one. Since you've admitted to not looking at any of the citations, it's not clear on what you're basing your judgement.
At this point, I'm really not sure what to think. Your last two comments prove that you've either not been following this closely, or maybe that you're just very confused. You're quoting sentences and terms that don't exist, mixing me up with wpegdon, making and then retracting and apologizing for vehement accusations - none of these are consistent with even the most basic standard of competence or comprehension. The result is that your "orders" are hard to take seriously, or even make sense of.
So where does that leave us? I don't know - personally I'm not willing or able to maintain this level of attention any longer. I find it quite sad that after all of this, the article is probably going to be left in worse shape than when we started. It will be more confused, and reflect less accurately the truth of the matter and the actual nature of the debate. I guess wikipedia as a model for accuracy is more deeply flawed than I had thought. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
[in reply to a now-removed comment by non-involved person "Lord Roem")
The other parties accepted the rulings I made, and they are the principal parties involved. I don't think, therefore, that there is any problem. I reopened the case to receive any further submissions by the parties. They accepted any rulings I made. If they objected to rulings I made, they had the opportunity to make those objections. They did not do so. Therefore - no problem. Mr Roem, you have no place in this mediation. By the way, info for the litigants. Please, in future, do not "throw" mounds of evidence at me. I am a single mediator, with a lot of responsibility. I am also a human being, and whilst it is possible to disabuse my mind of one or two submissions, it is very impossible to disabuse my mind of about 60 pieces of evidence - all at the same time! (just to make it clear
What? I never accepted your "ruling" (on the contrary, I pointed out that it directly contradicts itself, not to mention doesn't even address the original issue). Neither did 8digits, the person that requested this mediation in the first place. Neither did the other mediatior (who seems to have vanished). Neither did any of the other people involved, except wpegden implicitly.
Now I see from the comment you deleted - which I'm about to restore - that you aren't even following the basic guidelines of the mediation cabal. Your actions and statements throughout this process have been erratic and displayed little or no understanding of the issue. You even mixed me up with wpegden, accused me of things I didn't do, and then retracted your accusation and apologized. You didn't stick with the guidelines you laid out before the holidays. You never "ruled" on the original question. Instead, you suddenly "ruled" on a separate question and declared the case over. What exactly is going on here?? Waleswatcher (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Lord Roem had no place interfering in this mediation. Amuway, I made certain rulings, which were accepted by Wpedgen. I ruled on the original questions submitted to me - one on the rules of WP:CITE, and another on NPOV, wherein I looked at the rules set down in WP:CITE and applied them to the paragraph in question. I also looked at the NPOV rules and did the same. Combining those rulings together should get you the final paragraph I approved.
Anyway, Waleswatcher did not object to the way I ruled on things. Why should you? I always had suspicions that you were trying to: 1. Make my life difficult by beginning a somewhat personal argument with me. 2. obstruct the progression of this case by throwing futile arguments related to the case at me so that I am clogged up with considering and ruling on those arguments 3. Contest my ability to rule on certain issues (the rulings being accepted unequivocally by Waleswatcher) 4. Contest my jurisdiction over the case
I can see that they are all proved. If you did not like my rulings or anything else I did or said earlier in the prcess, you could have objected to it then. I am not going to consider a big "group objection" where you object to all my rulings in one paragraph - as legally viable, as I cannot reply to all of them at once.
I originally declared this case closed because I thought we had got that far. I then re-opened it to receive any further submissions from parties before re-closing it again. -- Thehistorian10 ( talk) 06:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
What??? Waleswatcher (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I never once heard an objection to any rulings coming from your direction. I therefore assumed that you didn't wish to object to the rulings because you liked them, Waleswatcher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehistorian10 ( talk • contribs)
You're not making any sense at all. You're literally posting nonsense, at least some of which seems to originate from the fact that you do not seem to be capable of keeping Wpegden and me straight. As for me not objecting... you're joking, I presume? If you're somehow serious, look here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F16_December_2011%2FString_theory&action=historysubmit&diff=470152396&oldid=470123710
Anyway, I think we've long since reached the end of any useful mediation on your part. In my opinion you have nothing to contribute to this process. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
As judged by the mediator, I am adding the approved paragraph to the article word-for-word, with the sentence "Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable" removed. I hope we can all move on now past this dispute. (Thanks to the mediator for wading through all this text we produced in the course of this disagreement.) Wpegden ( talk) 21:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I hereby declare this case to be closed. -- Thehistorian10 ( talk) 09:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please provide some links to the places where dispute resolution has previously been attempted? I've looked at the contributions of several of the listed editors and cannot find any such attempts. The prerequisites here require some prior attempt at dispute resolution before coming here. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) (as clerk) 21:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
That's for 8digits to answer, s/he requested this. The one thing I ask is that this discussion be saved in one form or another (perhaps on the article's talk page) since a fair amount of time has gone into it. Waleswatcher ( talk) 22:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Since more then two editors are involved, we had past the preliminary stage, when I put in request for facts, Waleswatcher edited them out so blocking the dispute resolution. So I decided to come here. Can you please suggest what we should do? 8digits ( talk)
I never "blocked" anything, at least not intentionally. I reverted several of 8digits' edits, but none of them were simply adding a tag or tags (I'm not familiar with "request for facts", but I assume it's a tag you can place at points in the article?). All the edits either included deleting chunks of the article or adding new (and uncited) material.
Incidentally, looking at the history I see that several other editors (TimothyRias, Michael C Price, to some extent Isocliff) reverted 8digits' edits for reasons that look very similar to mine. TR is already, but I think at least Michael C Price should be included as involved in this. Waleswatcher ( talk) 14:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
For clarity I'm going to put mu comments here, rather than in the sections above.
As far as I can tell, no one disputes the factual accuracy of (A) "all string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant, unitary, and contain Einstein's General Relativity as a low energy limit" (this is cited), or (B) "to falsify string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance, or general relativity" (this is also cited, and in any case follows trivially from (A)). The dispute seems to be over the sentence that follows that one, which is (C) "Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable and meet the definition of scientific theory according to Karl Popper's criterion." Some believe (C) constitutes original research or in some other way violates wiki's guidelines.
Is that a correct summary of the dispute? Part of the problem on the talk page is that people keep changing what they are objecting to, or why they are objecting to it. So before launching into an explanation of why I think that statement is not original research, I'd like to be sure I'm addressing the right issue. Thanks. Waleswatcher ( talk) 11:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Firstly I feel that there is an issue of association, string theory has many more claims then quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant, unitary, and Einstein's General Relativity. See the example of the magic elephants above.
Following your points (A) I do not think the cite is of such good quality. I would like to see more. (B) I want to see a credible cite for this, for example if say GR was incorrect, why do you feel it is not possible to save string theory? (C) again I want to see a cite. 8digits ( talk)
The cite for (A) is the standard reference in the field. Are you seriously questioning that? If so, I (or anyone else with knowledge of string theory) can add an essentially infinite number of additional cites for (A).
The cite for (B) is a scientific textbook that includes a full page on string theory. It says explicitly that string theory is falsifiable for precisely those reasons, that it has so far withstood experimental tests, and it also gives some information about more unique predictions such as the ones in the article. More citations saying exactly that won't be easy to find. That's because (A) immediately implies (B), and so most sources will just state (A). (To answer your question, yes, if GR is incorrect, all string theory models I know of are wrong. The equations of GR arise as a basic consistency condition - conformal invariance - on the string worldsheet. That fact is the main reason string theory is interesting to so many physicists.)
Finally, for (C) I argue that the statement is a trivial synthesis that is already adequately cited by (A) and (B) (and the link to the falsifiability wiki). If desired I can add a cite directly to Popper. For instance, http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html:
Part of (B) says that falsifying general relativity (or LI or QM) falsifies string theory. GR was one of Popper's prime examples of a falsifiable theory, and apart from what Popper thought, it is obviously falsifiable. I can provide plenty of cites that show that quantum mechanics and Lorentz invariance are falsifiable too (in fact they're arguably among the most falsifiable and precisely tested theories we have). So (B) says that string theory is falsifiable. That's Popper's criterion for a scientific theory - as the above quote shows, as does the wiki on it, as does every other source on Popper. Again, if desired additional cites can be added for all of that.
Following all that, to point out that string theory meets Popper's criterion is not original research. It's not research at all. It's a trivial synthesis of cited facts that's fully in accord with the intentions and meaning of all the sources. Waleswatcher ( talk) 13:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you have ignored my point that there is so much more to ST then what you quote but anyway
(A) I accept your offer to supply more cites on this. (B) I agree with you that GR can be falsified, what you have not shown is "to falsify string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance, or general relativity" I would like to see the cites you have for this? (C) If you do not have a cite, it becomes original research and not allowed here. Please supply a cite 8digits ( talk)
As can be seen in the above, there is no agreement on exactly what is wrong. That makes it hard to respond to, but I'll try. Regarding 8digits comment above: I'd be happy to supply additional cites for (A), but I'm going to wait a bit and see if anyone else thinks it's necessary. These are truly basic facts about string theory, they're in every textbook (and in fact are partly explained elsewhere in the same article). Regarding (B), I do not understand the question. There is already a cite, and as I pointed out, (B) follows immediately from (A). Regarding (C), I disagree as explained at length just above.
Wpegden's objection is twofold - s/he thinks it's an "improper synthesis", and also that it's uninteresting. Regarding the synthesis question, here's what the sources already cited say explicitly: all string models reduce to GR (that's the cite in (A)), GR is falsifiable (in the sense of Popper and in every other sense, Popper says that explicitly in many places, that too can be cited easily), string theory is falsifiable because of this and other reasons (that's said explicitly in the cite in (B)). There is no "technical" sense of the word falsifiable, Popper says exactly what he means, and it's exactly what all of these cites mean.
So we have multiple citations for (1) string theory is falsifiable and (2) Popper says that science is anything falsifiable. The only statement that isn't stated explicitly in a cite is "string theory is Popper falsifiable". There is hardly any synthesis at all, and it does not contravene the standard of advancing a point of view contrary to the sources. There is certainly no "research".
Regarding the "uninteresting" objection: this section is titled testability and predictivity, and that's precisely what this is about, so it's certainly on topic. Moreover there is some controversy about whether string theory is science, mentioned several times in the article, which I think makes this worth saying. Popper's definition is not at all "technical", it's perfectly clear and easy to understand. If there's a standard definition of "science", that's it. I do agree that if there was no controversy there would be no reason to point out the obvious fact that string theory is falsifiable, but there is one and it's discussed in the article. Waleswatcher ( talk) 17:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I've added a citation to the article that says that string theory is Lorentz invariant and (basically) quantum mechanical, and that violations of this - and they focus on a specific example - would falsify it. That's a paper published in the premier physics journal (phys rev lett). Apparently they considered falsifiability important and interesting enough to discuss, and they agree with the article as it is on all points. Waleswatcher ( talk) 22:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, I'm curious to know what this supposedly "low energy limit" in ST is, that reduces to GR. How low is "low"? Does "low" mean GR at all energies that don't require QM? For example, GR predicts many properties of black holes (at energies far lower than you need quantum gravity for, but still need very bent space for) as well as gravitational waves that are so strong that they actually interact with each other. And it gives quantitative numbers for these predictions. Is the claim that this is also true of EVERY string theory? Point me to a paper where string theory describes even a simple garden-variety Schwarzschild black hole in 3+1 space-time, please. Most of the black hole string theory papers I see have gravity actually turned off (!) Find me a string theory that makes quantitative predictions and reduces at low energy to ordinary 4-space (like we live in) with a Schwartzschild metric. Like the thing that lives in the center of our galaxy. Is that too much to ask? S B H arris 23:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | String theory |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 04:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC) |
Requesting party | 8digits ( talk) |
Parties involved | Waleswatcher,JohnBlackburne,8digits,TR,Wpegden |
Mediator(s) | thehistorian10, ( talk) |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Predictability_and_testability
On the other hand, all string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant, unitary, and contain Einstein's General Relativity as a low energy limit.[36] Therefore, to falsify string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance, or general relativity.[37] Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable and meet the definition of scientific theory according to Karl Popper's criterion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:String_theory#Popper_testability_following_from_testability_of_dependent_theories. Wpegden ( talk) 05:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Nobody disputes the accuracy of this statement, but many think that it is a major ask to say that because in theory GR and QM can be falsified so can string theory as it contains these in a low energy limit. There is so much more to string theory then GR and QM.
Also I do not think the reference quoted for the example is good enough, its a beginners book.
Also I think the main person that wants to keep it, is using his own original research, when I asked for references it was taken out.
Also I think if this is true then I could argue that "I have a theory that an invisible collection of magical pink elephants with unlimited power exist all around us, and they use their magical power to make general relativity hold all the time. They will always do this because it is their purpose in life which they never waver from.
This theory can be falsified by showing general relativity is false. But, I do not think it is scientific in the sense of popper (it's differences with general relativity cannot be falsified."
We have had an active talk page discussion and many prior good faith attempt at dispute resolution is a bare minimum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:String_theory#Popper_and_testability
I think it should be taken out.
I would accept a mediated solution, I am not sure of the others.
Do you realise that mediation requires an open mind, collaborating together in an environment of camaraderie and mutual respect, with the understanding that to reach a solution, compromise is required?
YES
I am going to mediate this. I have asked someone to join me as a co-mediator, and this case will not be considered as officially underway until I can find a new mediator to help me (note to admins: please put this case in the "open cases" box, even though I'm still on the hunt for a second mediator). -- Thehistorian10 ( talk) 12:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE: Due to the magnitude of the original debate on the talkpage, it'll take me a while to go through it all. I'm going to ask (regardless of whether they're actually there or not) what the main arguments are, so that they can be dealt with in turn - it makes life a lot easier, especially on such a large dispute. For example, are you disagreeing over whether something is original research or not, or is there something I'm not understanding?-- Thehistorian10 ( talk) 15:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
My position is that nothing in the text as it is now constitutes original research or violates any wiki guideline I'm aware of, and that everything in it is both correct and adequately cited (even more so now with the addition of the PRL citation on falsifying string theory). Because it's more or less the only statement that doesn't appear almost verbatim in the citations, I think if the phrase "and meet the definition of scientific theory according to Karl Popper's criterion" was deleted from the article with no other change, there would then be no grounds for discussion whatsoever. For the purposes of advancing the discussion it might be fruitful to first get agreement that the mention of Popper is the only thing at issue, and then proceed on that point. Waleswatcher ( talk) 15:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I presume you two know of the rule surrounding Citations? I quote:
By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable other editors and readers to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia and showing that the material is not original research. You also help readers find additional information on the subject; and you avoid committing plagiarism (by giving credit to the source of your words or ideas).
In particular, sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged – if reliable sources cannot be found for challenged material, it is likely to be removed from the article. Sources are also required when quoting someone, with or without quotation marks, or closely paraphasing a source. However, the citing of sources is not limited to those situations – editors are always encouraged to add or improve citations for any information contained in an article.
...
Inline citations allow the reader to associate a given bit of material in an article with the specific reliable source(s) that support the material. Inline citations are most commonly added using either footnotes (long or short) or parenthetical references. This section describes how to add either type, and also describes how to create a "general references" section that can be used to support shortened footnotes or parenthetical references.
...
Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself.
...
If a claim is doubtful but not harmful, use the citation needed template, which will add an inline tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time.
Take especial note of the thing about plagiarism. It goes against all of Wikipedia's policies. I think the general rule goes that if you casnnot find a reliable source, then take the sentence out.
As for the actual problem we have, I do not consider the statement re: Popper and the falsification of string theory to be obvious. I am not a physicist, and I would like to read more about that. As the article currently stands, I cannot do so. Therefore, to avoid having othr readers in the same quandary as myself, I would suggest that - until a citation is found - the text is deleted. -- Thehistorian10 ( talk) 09:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you be a little bit more explicit about which part of the statement you think should be deleted? The first part - that string theory is falsifiable for the reasons given - is stated explicitly in two citations that are already included in the article. The second part - that therefore string theory models meet the definition of scientific theory according to Popper - is not stated explicitly in any citation I know of. Is it only the second part you have a problem with, or the whole thing?
Regarding the second part, it is stated explicitly in many citations that string theory is falsifiable and that Popper's criterion for science is falsifiability. It is also stated in several citations (I can add them if needed) that general relativity is Popper falsifiable, and that string theory contains general relativity, and that falsifying general relativity falsifies string theory. Given that information - and perhaps it's not stated clearly enough in the article as it is now - wouldn't you consider it obvious that string theory is Popper falsifiable? Waleswatcher ( talk) 15:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with the mediation process. What's the next step here? I'm starting to think that Waleswatcher's belief that the statement is obvious and should be included is not "falsifiable", to borrow a term. Wpegden ( talk) 23:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Haha, very funny. After all, it's usually hard to falsify things that aren't false!
I don't know what the steps are either, but we're obviously a ways from done based on Thehistorian10's comment: "I am going to mediate this. I have asked someone to join me as a co-mediator, and this case will not be considered as officially underway until I can find a new mediator to help me" Meanwhile PLEASE stop editing the article, it's been that way for years, letting it stay for a few days isn't going to do any harm, and especially considering that 8digits opened this case and it's not resolved, any changes are premature and not really in good faith. Waleswatcher ( talk) 00:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Waleswatcher, I'd like to re-examine one important sentence in one of your numerous replies:
“Several sources already state explicitly that string theory is falsifiable. Other sources state that Popper's criterion for science is falsifiability”
I have read the article, and those "sources" you mention are not provided anywhere within the article. Therefore, how I am meant to judge where you got your info from? If your argument stands - that such sources exist, regardless of whether they are actually cited - then we could have lots of articles saying stupid things like "pink elephants exist", without there being any citations for that claim. If such a claim was disputed, the article author could just say "several sources already explicitly state that pink elephants exist", even though there are no physical references in the article. Therefore, to avoid such problems arising in the future, I would like anything to do with the (alleged) falsifiability of string theory to be removed, until such a time as sources - which can be agreed on by ALL parties in this dispute - are found. That is my final word on the matter. However, if you wish to continue this dispute, note that I will take my leave of absence from official Wikipedia duties as of approx. 4pm (GMT) tomorrow, Tuesday 21 December, and I will not return until 5 January 2012 at 9am. Therefore, as of 4pm tomorrow, all debate on this matter is closed indefinitely or suspended for the Christmas holidays.
I wish you all a Merry Christmas.
-- Thehistorian10 ( talk) 16:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi; I agreed to help out Thehistorian10 with mediation. I would suggest that we don't need to worry too much about fixed dates and deadlines and submissions here, because (a) I'm online almost continuously so things won't crash and burn at times when Thehistorian10 isn't around, and (b) medcab is usually a little more informal. As long as we're making progress, I'm happy. bobrayner ( talk) 03:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Bob, so long as you're willing to sit to one side, watch, and growl at me (or step in) when things look like they're getting too heavy, or I'm floundering or doing something wrong, then we (may) all be happy.
I just want to make sure of something. Technically, I'm supposed to be taking a Christmas leave of absence from Wikiduties, but because of this little problem, I've cut short my holiday. I'm not really going to be available on December 25, 26, or 27,and I'll resume full duties on approx. December 28. During the dates when I'm gone, Bob should be able to do my job for me.
Another thing, I am going to assume that we basically got up to the last argument BEFORE deadlines were being set (i.e. after all the responses to that stuff about WP:CITE - where Waleswatcher stated "...your criteria is thus fulfilled"), OK? -- Thehistorian10 ( talk) 18:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
[Part of these remarks were on this page before but deleted for some reason... perhaps it was in the wrong place? Anyways, I thought I would add them back since they are still current with respect to the dispute.]
I will keep it simple: Waleswatcher has not produced a single source that mentions both Popper and String theory. Nevertheless he wants to include a statement that string theory is "falsifiable in the sense of Popper" or "scientific according to Popper's criterion". This means he is doing original research. He thinks it is trivial research, because he has sources which use the word falsifiable to describe string theory (while not mentioning the many other sources describing it as possibly unfalsifiable) and because he has sources that say that falsifiable is Popper's criterion for whether something is scientific. Unfortunately, it is original research to combine these into the statement he wants to make. (For example, how do you know both people mean the same thing when the say "falsifiable"?). I think that if there is no source---anywhere---that Walsewatcher has been able to find which says that "string theory is scientific in the sense of Popper", then we can't have the statement that "string theory is scientific in the sense of Popper" in the article. This discussion has meandered a lot and sometimes gone down complicated paths, but I think the original research issue is simple and clear. We should always be skeptical of people saying that it is okay to have something in Wikipedia without a citation. How could it be acceptable that Wikipedia would be the only source of the information that string theory is scientific according to Popper's criterion?
The irony here, is that it is actually no trouble at all to find sources that mention both Popper and String theory. I encourage everyone to try this. Just do a search for Popper and string theory on scholar.google.com or books.google.com. The reason Waleswatcher hasn't brought any of these sources up is that all the potential sources you will find make the opposite point of the one Waleswatcher wants the Wikipedia article to make without a citation.)
Here's a good thought experiment to carry out. Imagine that Waleswatcher tomorrow manages to what he has so far been unable to: namely, find sources which explicitly say that string theory is scientific according to Popper's criterion. What sentence would go in the article at that point? Since we have good sources which take the opposite position (such as This article, written by a string theorist), we could only have a sentence like this: "Some sources believe that string theory is not scientific according to Popper's criterion, while others disagree" (or vice versa) and then give sources on both sides. We still couldn't have the sentence Waleswatcher wants. In fact, the only related sentence we have citations to write right now is the sentence "string theory is not scientific according to Popper's criterion", which is the exact opposite of the sentence Waleswatcher wants the article to have, even though he has not even one source which explicitly takes that position. Wpegden ( talk) 16:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd like you to read the last comment I made in the "arbitry break" section, then you'll understand why I deleted your previous comments. I am ready to mark this case as closed, being as the suggestions made here for improving the article seem to have been accepted. Are there any final comments from any of the participants or from bobrayner? -- Thehistorian10 ( talk) 18:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the discussion will be aided if we have an alternative paragraph to discuss the comparable merits of. Here is a suggestion for a proposed replacement:
It seems like something along these lines is the only thing we are going to be able to have. We can't be deciding who is correct among the sources when there is a dispute there, we just have to say the dispute exists and say what the positions of both sides are. The "citation needed" tag is in the paragraph because I'm not sure what the best citation is for this sentence. I'm open to suggestions (or even putting this in the article with the tag in place while we give ourselves time to find a good one). Do the mediators have any comments on this suggestion, or suggestions for improvement? Thanks! Wpegden ( talk) 16:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
That will be sufficient. I think we are reaching an impasse. So long as whomever puts the paragraph into the article follows the rule of WP:CITE, then I have no problem. I would like, however, that the final paragraph (including citations) be approved by both mediators. Basically, I would like to see the final paragraph as it would be in the article. I will then put the paragraph (in its final form) to the other participants in this case. If we all agree, then the case will be closed and marked as resolved. If not, then we'll have to think of something else.
-- Thehistorian10 ( talk) 17:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's the current language:
Finding a way to confirm string theory with our current technology is a major challenge,[35] Primarily this is due to the ultra-small size of the Planck length, which is expected to be close to the string length (the characteristic size of a string, where strings become easily distinguishable from particles). Another issue is the huge number of metastable vacua of string theory. These vacua might be sufficiently diverse to accommodate almost any phenomena we might observe at lower energies. Some critics argue that these issues make string theory de-facto untestable. On the other hand, all string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant,[36] unitary, and contain Einstein's General Relativity as a low energy limit.[37] Therefore, to falsify[38] string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance,[36] or general relativity.[39] Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable.[36] But to constitute a convincing verification of string theory, a prediction should be specific to it, not shared by any quantum field theory model or by General Relativity.
This differs from the language when this mediation started in that it's missing the phrase "and meet the definition of scientific theory according to Karl Popper's criterion" following "falsifiable". My proposal is that we restore that phrase (which was removed by someone during this mediation), basically returning to the consensus version from several years ago but with additional cites (the version that remained unchanged for years until 8digits began his/her edits). I think we have established very thoroughly that it is adequately cited and does not violate any of wiki's guidelines (not to mention that it's true). Even with the Popper phrase included, this language still significantly overstates the case against the testability/falsifiability/scientific status of string theory. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The real problem here is that you aren't making a coherent argument. Every time I address an issue you've raised, you shift ground to something new and pretend the previous issue never happened. I don't see any end to that.
This is precisely what I anticipated at the beginning of this mediation process - that you (and 8digits) would continue the practice of goal-post shifting that was already a problem on the talk page. That's why I asked at the very beginning that we focus on a specific issue. My proposal was that we determine whether the language in the article as it was did or did not violate wikipedia's guidelines. I think we have now established that it does not violate any guidelines. In response, you have completely flipflopped your position. You've gone from "I don't question that ST is falsifiable, but I think the phrase mentioning Popper is original research" and "Popper isn't relevant or sufficiently interesting in an article on string theory, so shouldn't be mentioned" (those aren't direct quotes, but I'm happy to provide them if you dispute their accuracy) to "ST isn't falsifiable after all" and "Let's expand the brief mention of Popper to an entire section".
I can go through all of the references you list above and point out precisely why each one doesn't support your position or isn't relevant. But frankly, I'm fed up, because every time I do that you just shift ground again. Your assertions about the Distler et al reference is a perfect example. You claimed that the Distler ref doesn't support the assertion that ST is falsifiable. When I pointed out (twice) that Distler et all specifically and directly contradicts you, you suddenly moved on to something else. It just doesn't look like you're arguing in good faith here, and I'm losing patience.
There is no debate that string theory reduces to GR, is Lorentz invariant, and is quantum mechanical. There is no debate that those are falsifiable theories. There is no debate that if one of those was falsified, string theory would be falsified too. The debate is over whether string theory makes any NEW predictions, predictions unique to ST that don't follow from those three together, that can be falsified with current or near-future tech. That is a real issue, it's important, and it should be - and is! - addressed in the article. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, there was no goal-shifting. After I laid down the law which we would be working by (WP:CITE), Wpidgeon - as far as I can see - followed that law to the letter. He has provided sources. I am not willing to go through the sources in great detail, but because one of them is written by Popper himself, and another is written by a Cantabrian (Cambridge Professor), and yet another is written in a high-quality journal, I am willing to accept them as authoritative. Further, there was, and still is, no case of Wpidgeon ever saying that Popper was unreliable - in fact, I believe that had he his way, Popper would be one of the principal sources for that entire section. No, I believe, Waleswatcher, that you are doing these things: 1) rapidly changing your arguments, to give the mediator/s more work than necessary 2) contradicting yourself and thus not making sense 3) attempting to draw out the case insofar that we will all be so bored and confused that we'll agree with anything that you say.
I can promise you that none of the above will work. I have sat through this case for the past 3-4 weeks. I am not yet confused, bored or tired - I can understand the proceedings. You rapidly change your arguments so that you can either attempt to contradict whatever Wpidgeon is saying, or, failing that, you attempt to claim that Wpidgeon is contradicting himself. From the arguments I read above, Wpidgeon's arguments are very fluid. Yours are not - sometimes, I get lost in your arguments.
As for the article proposal, I like the idea. I am quite happy to accept the proposal as authoritative, and to wind up this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehistorian10 ( talk • contribs)
After reading your comment twice, I am honestly wondering if you have confused the two of us. None of Wpegden's cites are by Popper, and his position from the beginning was that Popper is not even relevant to this article! Are you perhaps referring to the cite to Popper that I added? I added that citation to the article weeks ago, along with another, to Distler - citations that you evidently still have not looked at. As for Wpegden's Tong cite, in the sentence just preceding the one quoted Tong says "...if we're looking for convincing evidence that string theory describes the world in which we live" - so he is discussing the issue of what new predictions string theory makes, a very important issue that is already discussed in the article, but not the predictions it makes that are shared with other theories. The same goes for the other references Wpegden has above, not one of which contradicts or even challenges the fact that ST incorporates other, falsifiable theories as limits or properties.
As for goal-post shifting, I defy you to find even one example where I changed my arguments even slightly. I have focussed on the issue on which this mediation was requested from the very beginning (if that phrase constitutes original research), and tried my best to get it addressed. The very first thing I did here was try to get clarity on what exactly was the issue, precisely to avoid the situation that has now occurred.
And I'm trying to draw out the case? I thought it was basically done, and was satisfied - and then at the last minute, long after the date when you said arguments should be finished, Wpegden suddenly shifted ground, flipping from "we shouldn't even mention Popper" to "we should add a whole new section" - one that muddles and misrepresents the facts, I might add.
You said you like the idea of "the article proposal" - which proposal? Mine was that we keep the article as is now (including the extra cites that have been added of course), and re-insert the phrase regarding Popper more or less as it was prior to the start of this process. Is that the proposal you mean? Waleswatcher (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I am going slightly mad. OK, I noted that Wpedgen is the one who suggested rewriting the disputed passage. I further note that I have been blaming the wrong person (Wpedgen) rather than Waleswatcher. As for your question as to which suggestion I like, see the quote:
"Finding a way to confirm string theory with our current technology is a major challenge,[35] Primarily this is due to the ultra-small size of the Planck length, which is expected to be close to the string length (the characteristic size of a string, where strings become easily distinguishable from particles). Another issue is the huge number of metastable vacua of string theory. These vacua might be sufficiently diverse to accommodate almost any phenomena we might observe at lower energies. Some critics argue that these issues make string theory de-facto untestable. On the other hand, all string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant,[36] unitary, and contain Einstein's General Relativity as a low energy limit.[37] Therefore, to falsify[38] string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance,[36] or general relativity.[39] Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable.[36] But to constitute a convincing verification of string theory, a prediction should be specific to it, not shared by any quantum field theory model or by General Relativity."
I have reviewed the discussions above, and I can find no evidence to substantiate my claims. I will not withdraw my Mediator's Commission, because we are too far into this case for a new mediator to pick it up and understand it quickly, but I will issue a public apology which will remain on this page.
I like the above article because it follows the groundules I set forth (WP:CITE), and it follows the rules about NPOV as well. -- Thehistorian10 ( talk) 11:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Thehistorian10, thanks for that. Apology accepted. I think we're getting close to a conclusion, but there is still an open question. The original (i.e. at the start of this mediation) language was what you approved, plus one additional phrase that mentioned Popper. Here it is:
"Finding a way to confirm string theory with our current technology is a major challenge,[35] Primarily this is due to the ultra-small size of the Planck length, which is expected to be close to the string length (the characteristic size of a string, where strings become easily distinguishable from particles). Another issue is the huge number of metastable vacua of string theory. These vacua might be sufficiently diverse to accommodate almost any phenomena we might observe at lower energies. Some critics argue that these issues make string theory de-facto untestable. On the other hand, all string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant,[36] unitary, and contain Einstein's General Relativity as a low energy limit.[37] Therefore, to falsify[38] string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance,[36] or general relativity.[39] Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable[36] and meet the definition of scientific theory according to Karl Popper's criterion [cite to Popper]. But to constitute a convincing verification of string theory, a prediction should be specific to it, not shared by any quantum field theory model or by General Relativity."
From the very beginning, I tried to get clarity on the phrase "and meet the definition of scientific theory according to Karl Popper's criterion", since that seemed to be the main point of disagreement. My contention was and still is that that phrase does not constitute OR and is adequately cited, because: (1) string theory has properties XYZ (cited), (2) XYZ are falsifiable (cited) and therefore so is string theory (cited), and (3) Popper's criterion for scientific theories is falsifiable (cited). Could you please give your opinion on the language above, including that phrase? Thank you. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, this will get confusing. The case is near closure - I accept that. This case will, at the current rate, go onwards until eternity with the two main editors (Waleswatcher and Wpedgen) squabbling, and we will never reach a situation which will be wholly acceptable to the pair of you.
As for the final Question submitted, wherein it states: "evaluate whether the sentence "string theory is falsifiable" can be stated in the article as fact, since the sources marked XXX above appear reliable and appear to directly contradict it. Doesn't this violate NPOV?"
I have explored the rules set out by NPOV, wherein it states: · Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
· Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
· Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
· Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone." Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE
I am sorry about the long citation, but, the article paragraph in dispute - with that one sentence - violates points two and four of the above bullet points. Saying that X (string theory) is always falsifiable, without exploring that claim nor substantiating it, is judgemental language, as it seems to show to a reader that there are no other opinions regarding the falsifiability of string theory.
As for its violation of point two, The same rules apply as mentioned in the previous paragraph. The falsifiability of string theory - in my opinion - is a seriously contested and contestable theory which has been asserted as a fact by the use of the word "always", as if to say that string theory is definitively falsifiable.
I therefore Order and Adjudge that:
1. the Paragraph which I approved above be fully implemented into the article
2. the contested sentence ("String theory is always falsifiable") be fully removed from the article, including all sources, references and associated notes.
I hope that resolves everything for everyone involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehistorian10 ( talk • contribs)
Unfortunately it doesn't. Your two "orders" directly contradict one another. How can that paragraph be "fully implemented into the article" when it contains a sentence you want removed? To make it even more muddled, the phrase you put in quotes in item 2. actually doesn't appear anywhere in the paragraph, and neither does the word "always" that you earlier put in quotes and made a point about. So...?
On top, you say "without exploring that claim nor substantiating it" - but the sentence before the one I think you're referring to establishes the claim step by step, with each step cited, explaining and substantiating precisely how and why the conclusion (that itself appears in multiple cites) follows. In fact, there are no citations that dispute any of the steps involved. None of the "negative" citations presented so far so much as mention general relativity, quantum mechanics, or Lorentz invariance. So there is no dispute on that type of falsifiability, let alone a "serious" one. Since you've admitted to not looking at any of the citations, it's not clear on what you're basing your judgement.
At this point, I'm really not sure what to think. Your last two comments prove that you've either not been following this closely, or maybe that you're just very confused. You're quoting sentences and terms that don't exist, mixing me up with wpegdon, making and then retracting and apologizing for vehement accusations - none of these are consistent with even the most basic standard of competence or comprehension. The result is that your "orders" are hard to take seriously, or even make sense of.
So where does that leave us? I don't know - personally I'm not willing or able to maintain this level of attention any longer. I find it quite sad that after all of this, the article is probably going to be left in worse shape than when we started. It will be more confused, and reflect less accurately the truth of the matter and the actual nature of the debate. I guess wikipedia as a model for accuracy is more deeply flawed than I had thought. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
[in reply to a now-removed comment by non-involved person "Lord Roem")
The other parties accepted the rulings I made, and they are the principal parties involved. I don't think, therefore, that there is any problem. I reopened the case to receive any further submissions by the parties. They accepted any rulings I made. If they objected to rulings I made, they had the opportunity to make those objections. They did not do so. Therefore - no problem. Mr Roem, you have no place in this mediation. By the way, info for the litigants. Please, in future, do not "throw" mounds of evidence at me. I am a single mediator, with a lot of responsibility. I am also a human being, and whilst it is possible to disabuse my mind of one or two submissions, it is very impossible to disabuse my mind of about 60 pieces of evidence - all at the same time! (just to make it clear
What? I never accepted your "ruling" (on the contrary, I pointed out that it directly contradicts itself, not to mention doesn't even address the original issue). Neither did 8digits, the person that requested this mediation in the first place. Neither did the other mediatior (who seems to have vanished). Neither did any of the other people involved, except wpegden implicitly.
Now I see from the comment you deleted - which I'm about to restore - that you aren't even following the basic guidelines of the mediation cabal. Your actions and statements throughout this process have been erratic and displayed little or no understanding of the issue. You even mixed me up with wpegden, accused me of things I didn't do, and then retracted your accusation and apologized. You didn't stick with the guidelines you laid out before the holidays. You never "ruled" on the original question. Instead, you suddenly "ruled" on a separate question and declared the case over. What exactly is going on here?? Waleswatcher (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Lord Roem had no place interfering in this mediation. Amuway, I made certain rulings, which were accepted by Wpedgen. I ruled on the original questions submitted to me - one on the rules of WP:CITE, and another on NPOV, wherein I looked at the rules set down in WP:CITE and applied them to the paragraph in question. I also looked at the NPOV rules and did the same. Combining those rulings together should get you the final paragraph I approved.
Anyway, Waleswatcher did not object to the way I ruled on things. Why should you? I always had suspicions that you were trying to: 1. Make my life difficult by beginning a somewhat personal argument with me. 2. obstruct the progression of this case by throwing futile arguments related to the case at me so that I am clogged up with considering and ruling on those arguments 3. Contest my ability to rule on certain issues (the rulings being accepted unequivocally by Waleswatcher) 4. Contest my jurisdiction over the case
I can see that they are all proved. If you did not like my rulings or anything else I did or said earlier in the prcess, you could have objected to it then. I am not going to consider a big "group objection" where you object to all my rulings in one paragraph - as legally viable, as I cannot reply to all of them at once.
I originally declared this case closed because I thought we had got that far. I then re-opened it to receive any further submissions from parties before re-closing it again. -- Thehistorian10 ( talk) 06:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
What??? Waleswatcher (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I never once heard an objection to any rulings coming from your direction. I therefore assumed that you didn't wish to object to the rulings because you liked them, Waleswatcher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehistorian10 ( talk • contribs)
You're not making any sense at all. You're literally posting nonsense, at least some of which seems to originate from the fact that you do not seem to be capable of keeping Wpegden and me straight. As for me not objecting... you're joking, I presume? If you're somehow serious, look here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F16_December_2011%2FString_theory&action=historysubmit&diff=470152396&oldid=470123710
Anyway, I think we've long since reached the end of any useful mediation on your part. In my opinion you have nothing to contribute to this process. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
As judged by the mediator, I am adding the approved paragraph to the article word-for-word, with the sentence "Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable" removed. I hope we can all move on now past this dispute. (Thanks to the mediator for wading through all this text we produced in the course of this disagreement.) Wpegden ( talk) 21:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I hereby declare this case to be closed. -- Thehistorian10 ( talk) 09:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please provide some links to the places where dispute resolution has previously been attempted? I've looked at the contributions of several of the listed editors and cannot find any such attempts. The prerequisites here require some prior attempt at dispute resolution before coming here. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) (as clerk) 21:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
That's for 8digits to answer, s/he requested this. The one thing I ask is that this discussion be saved in one form or another (perhaps on the article's talk page) since a fair amount of time has gone into it. Waleswatcher ( talk) 22:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Since more then two editors are involved, we had past the preliminary stage, when I put in request for facts, Waleswatcher edited them out so blocking the dispute resolution. So I decided to come here. Can you please suggest what we should do? 8digits ( talk)
I never "blocked" anything, at least not intentionally. I reverted several of 8digits' edits, but none of them were simply adding a tag or tags (I'm not familiar with "request for facts", but I assume it's a tag you can place at points in the article?). All the edits either included deleting chunks of the article or adding new (and uncited) material.
Incidentally, looking at the history I see that several other editors (TimothyRias, Michael C Price, to some extent Isocliff) reverted 8digits' edits for reasons that look very similar to mine. TR is already, but I think at least Michael C Price should be included as involved in this. Waleswatcher ( talk) 14:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
For clarity I'm going to put mu comments here, rather than in the sections above.
As far as I can tell, no one disputes the factual accuracy of (A) "all string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant, unitary, and contain Einstein's General Relativity as a low energy limit" (this is cited), or (B) "to falsify string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance, or general relativity" (this is also cited, and in any case follows trivially from (A)). The dispute seems to be over the sentence that follows that one, which is (C) "Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable and meet the definition of scientific theory according to Karl Popper's criterion." Some believe (C) constitutes original research or in some other way violates wiki's guidelines.
Is that a correct summary of the dispute? Part of the problem on the talk page is that people keep changing what they are objecting to, or why they are objecting to it. So before launching into an explanation of why I think that statement is not original research, I'd like to be sure I'm addressing the right issue. Thanks. Waleswatcher ( talk) 11:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Firstly I feel that there is an issue of association, string theory has many more claims then quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant, unitary, and Einstein's General Relativity. See the example of the magic elephants above.
Following your points (A) I do not think the cite is of such good quality. I would like to see more. (B) I want to see a credible cite for this, for example if say GR was incorrect, why do you feel it is not possible to save string theory? (C) again I want to see a cite. 8digits ( talk)
The cite for (A) is the standard reference in the field. Are you seriously questioning that? If so, I (or anyone else with knowledge of string theory) can add an essentially infinite number of additional cites for (A).
The cite for (B) is a scientific textbook that includes a full page on string theory. It says explicitly that string theory is falsifiable for precisely those reasons, that it has so far withstood experimental tests, and it also gives some information about more unique predictions such as the ones in the article. More citations saying exactly that won't be easy to find. That's because (A) immediately implies (B), and so most sources will just state (A). (To answer your question, yes, if GR is incorrect, all string theory models I know of are wrong. The equations of GR arise as a basic consistency condition - conformal invariance - on the string worldsheet. That fact is the main reason string theory is interesting to so many physicists.)
Finally, for (C) I argue that the statement is a trivial synthesis that is already adequately cited by (A) and (B) (and the link to the falsifiability wiki). If desired I can add a cite directly to Popper. For instance, http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html:
Part of (B) says that falsifying general relativity (or LI or QM) falsifies string theory. GR was one of Popper's prime examples of a falsifiable theory, and apart from what Popper thought, it is obviously falsifiable. I can provide plenty of cites that show that quantum mechanics and Lorentz invariance are falsifiable too (in fact they're arguably among the most falsifiable and precisely tested theories we have). So (B) says that string theory is falsifiable. That's Popper's criterion for a scientific theory - as the above quote shows, as does the wiki on it, as does every other source on Popper. Again, if desired additional cites can be added for all of that.
Following all that, to point out that string theory meets Popper's criterion is not original research. It's not research at all. It's a trivial synthesis of cited facts that's fully in accord with the intentions and meaning of all the sources. Waleswatcher ( talk) 13:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you have ignored my point that there is so much more to ST then what you quote but anyway
(A) I accept your offer to supply more cites on this. (B) I agree with you that GR can be falsified, what you have not shown is "to falsify string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance, or general relativity" I would like to see the cites you have for this? (C) If you do not have a cite, it becomes original research and not allowed here. Please supply a cite 8digits ( talk)
As can be seen in the above, there is no agreement on exactly what is wrong. That makes it hard to respond to, but I'll try. Regarding 8digits comment above: I'd be happy to supply additional cites for (A), but I'm going to wait a bit and see if anyone else thinks it's necessary. These are truly basic facts about string theory, they're in every textbook (and in fact are partly explained elsewhere in the same article). Regarding (B), I do not understand the question. There is already a cite, and as I pointed out, (B) follows immediately from (A). Regarding (C), I disagree as explained at length just above.
Wpegden's objection is twofold - s/he thinks it's an "improper synthesis", and also that it's uninteresting. Regarding the synthesis question, here's what the sources already cited say explicitly: all string models reduce to GR (that's the cite in (A)), GR is falsifiable (in the sense of Popper and in every other sense, Popper says that explicitly in many places, that too can be cited easily), string theory is falsifiable because of this and other reasons (that's said explicitly in the cite in (B)). There is no "technical" sense of the word falsifiable, Popper says exactly what he means, and it's exactly what all of these cites mean.
So we have multiple citations for (1) string theory is falsifiable and (2) Popper says that science is anything falsifiable. The only statement that isn't stated explicitly in a cite is "string theory is Popper falsifiable". There is hardly any synthesis at all, and it does not contravene the standard of advancing a point of view contrary to the sources. There is certainly no "research".
Regarding the "uninteresting" objection: this section is titled testability and predictivity, and that's precisely what this is about, so it's certainly on topic. Moreover there is some controversy about whether string theory is science, mentioned several times in the article, which I think makes this worth saying. Popper's definition is not at all "technical", it's perfectly clear and easy to understand. If there's a standard definition of "science", that's it. I do agree that if there was no controversy there would be no reason to point out the obvious fact that string theory is falsifiable, but there is one and it's discussed in the article. Waleswatcher ( talk) 17:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I've added a citation to the article that says that string theory is Lorentz invariant and (basically) quantum mechanical, and that violations of this - and they focus on a specific example - would falsify it. That's a paper published in the premier physics journal (phys rev lett). Apparently they considered falsifiability important and interesting enough to discuss, and they agree with the article as it is on all points. Waleswatcher ( talk) 22:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, I'm curious to know what this supposedly "low energy limit" in ST is, that reduces to GR. How low is "low"? Does "low" mean GR at all energies that don't require QM? For example, GR predicts many properties of black holes (at energies far lower than you need quantum gravity for, but still need very bent space for) as well as gravitational waves that are so strong that they actually interact with each other. And it gives quantitative numbers for these predictions. Is the claim that this is also true of EVERY string theory? Point me to a paper where string theory describes even a simple garden-variety Schwarzschild black hole in 3+1 space-time, please. Most of the black hole string theory papers I see have gravity actually turned off (!) Find me a string theory that makes quantitative predictions and reduces at low energy to ordinary 4-space (like we live in) with a Schwartzschild metric. Like the thing that lives in the center of our galaxy. Is that too much to ask? S B H arris 23:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)