Title: Theory or Theology: The Search for Truth in Science
Abstract:
For the past 35 years, physicists have been consumed by a problem that, if solved, would in essence be the “theory of everything”: string theory. After years of trials, experiments, and absurd mathematical calculations, the amount of evidentiary proof is at a resounding nothing. We have no data, no images, and no reason to believe it’s true; so why do we believe it’s true?
Has science become a religion rather than a science? Why would we believe something without any proof? My purpose in this project is to identify the two sides of the string theory argument. Is science relying to much on the dogma of its elders, instead of being revolutionary and breaking boundaries?
I would like to show my audience that the new face of science may actually be discouraging young students from pursuing a career in scientific research, because they do not see an opportunity to be the Einstein of the new era.
Methodology:
(I’m not really sure about this yet)
Because string theory is an excellent example of my argument, I will probably start by defining the bare bones of string theory. Once it has been clearly understood, the audience will be given the argument against the exclusivity of string theory. I will give the audience an opportunity to do an experiment in deductive reasoning, to make them understand how scientific theories are produced.
The next step is to show the reader other examples of how science is losing its empirical basis. Maybe include interviews with prominent scientists as well as journalists. Present the fact that many scientists who reject string theory cannot find jobs, and therefore we are effectively blocking the progress of science. From here, I will move to address science education, and why students are turning away from scientific study due to the stagnation of scientific research.
Media Presentation and Justification:
I haven’t really addressed media in full yet, but I don’t want the presentation to be a boring one-sided scientific “powerpoint.” The project would most likely be in DVD format, an interactive presentation with multi-path navigation, including interviews and maybe a game involving deductive reasoning.
After our discussion today, I was considering the possibility of allowing the viewer to add to the project, that way it is constantly changing. This might indicate that it will be an online project instead of a DVD. It really fits in with my topic, because I don’t want to be talking at the audience, I want it to be a dynamic conversation, where they can put forth their own ideas while responding to my own.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hello Sonia
Can only agree with you about string theory. Have you read Peter Woit's book Not Even Wrong?
I've concluded that, while the Standard Model of quantum and particle physics has been very successful in terms of accuracy and explaining the constant visible, chemical, nuclear and electromagnetic properties of matter, in developing general theories that explain how the universe is the way that it is quantum theory went wrong back in 1927 when the Copenhagen interpretation was accepted in favour of, in particular, de Broglie's Pilot-wave interpretation.
I have developed a diagrammatic hypothesis that is based upon the de Brogil-Bohm no-local causal interpretation which is very different from string theory and the like! So this is non-mathematical but is supported by a wide range of general natural evidence. This being a theory of a cause (which Bohm called the quantum potential) as it acts in addition to all the forces. A summary of this theory can be found at:
http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com
you comments are very welcome!
You're very close - I wonder if your purpose in the project is to identify the two sides of the string theory argument OR to pose the questions that follow: "Is science relying to much on the dogma of its elders, instead of being revolutionary and breaking boundaries?" by identifying the two sides of the string theory argument. You may want to clarify your abstract by prioritizing.
I like the idea of an online, living document - it would be a challenge to maintain the argument about the state of science rather that the particulars of string theory (vis a vis the previous comment). Deductive reasoning games sound within the scope - you might even be able to find some existing games or game mechanics that satisfy that.
Hey Sonia,
I love the driving idea of your project! What I thought when I read your proposal is similar to what I thought about my own - how to physically represent what the project is trying to get across. Maybe I'm seeing it from this angle because my roomates a 3D designer, but it would seem that something as dynamic as string theory might require something more beyond mere pictures, text, and voiceover. It seems like whenever I think of science and this genre, the first thing that comes to mind is animation. Do you think that would play a big part, especially when you're visually trying to illustrate your points?
Post a Comment