Talk:List of minority-opinion scientific theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] String Theory

I have removed string theory from the list because it is not a minority opinion. Most scientists know little about it because it is only required to explain observations that take place in ultra-massive particle interactions (think black holes and the big bang). This means that it has very little application to any area of science outside of cosmology and theoretical physics. Cosmologists and theoretical physicists generally accept M-theory, an expanded version of string theory that explains more observations. Please note that M-Theory is often referred to as string theory because it is actually a combination of 5 different versions of string theory along with 11 dimensional quantum gravity. --Savant13 17:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted that change because it certainly is a minority theory. Many scientists in the field even question whether or not it's actually a proper theory. Hardly a theory that has achieved scientific consensus, even if it is a field of great interest. Vassyana 17:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the basis of this opinion? Mine stems from articles in Scientific American and Astronomy (a peer reviewed journal), as well as books such as The Elegant Universe and various television programs which I can't remember the names of. Besides, just because it is an incomplete theory does not mean it is a minority one. There are still doubts about it among everyone, but no one (sane) insists that is correct beyond doubt. --Savant13 13:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And where in these books and journals exactly does it state that string theory is generally accepted by the scientific community or even by its own researchers? —Pengo 14:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't memorize the things. I would also like to know if you have read the articles on string theory and M-theory. --Savant13 17:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The article itself states:

."Minority-opinion theories run counter to the majority view in science, called the "scientific consensus" (which is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the majority of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time)."

Are you saying that string theory is accepted by the scientific consensus? If not, then it is indeed a minority view. Vassyana 21:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree it's been widely published, but not without wide criticism. A good example of what is wrong with string theory and why it is not a majority theory is from Woit, Peter (2002). Is string theory even wrong?. American Scientist:

"There is, however, one physical prediction that string theory does make: the value of a quantity called the cosmological constant (a measure of the energy of the vacuum). Recent observations of distant supernovae indicate that this quantity is very small but not zero. A simple argument in string theory indicates that the cosmological constant should be at least around 55 orders of magnitude larger than the observed value. This is perhaps the most incorrect experimental prediction ever made by any physical theory that anyone has taken seriously."

Peter Woit is hardly alone in his criticisms or critical view of string theory. Regardless, unless you're asserting one of the few predictions made by string theory is correct and accepted, it's hardly a widely accepted theory. Vassyana 22:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Evcen the supporters of string theory admit that it is not accepted or proven yet. Dr. Strominger, one of the strongest supporters of string theory, stated in an interview:

"First of all, I should say that string theory is a very promising, exciting and interesting proposal for developing our understanding of the laws of nature beyond where they currently stand. What happened is that we discovered that string theory contains within it particles and forces that look very, very much like the particles and forces that we see in the world around us. The door was opened to the possibility that string theory really is a theory of nature. The initial progress in 1984 and 1985 was so rapid and dramatic that many people had the feeling that we would push it all the way to the finish line within a few years or even months. That hasn't happened. Twenty years later the jury is still out. We don't know if string theory is the correct theory of nature or not."^[1]

When its own supporters admit it is not known whether or not it is correct, that's hardly reassuring to any claim it's accepted by scientific consensus. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it. Otherwise, for the time being, it certainly seems to be a minority theory. Vassyana 22:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The scientific consensus on string theory is that it is probably right. That is pretty good considering the fact that it is not yet a working theory. In fact, string theory encounters less resistance than quantum theory did, and quantum theory had more readily available results. If it were not for the incompleteness of the theory, I would not object to it being on this list. How about a compromise. We leave it on the list, but explain that it is not a complete theory. --Savant13 14:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That is perfectly acceptable to me. Vassyana 18:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A quick comment. While this shouldn't affect what can and can't appear on this list: I started this article/list with string theory as the only item on it. My motivation was that I wanted to know what other cool theories/hypotheses were in development, but with the pseudoscience filtered out. —Pengo 21:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Then you may wist to view this website--Savant13 18:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] String theory?

Are we sure this is a minority-opinion theory? It seems to be pretty prominent in its field. Sockatume 22:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• While it's attracting many researchers now, it certain is minority theory, if it can even be called a theory. It has made no testable predictions as yet, and is really very much a work in progress. It is not a mainstream accepted scientific theory. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 02:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, it's not widely accepted, for obvious reasons, but it seems to be attracting more than a minority of the research attention in its particular field. I suppose it all comes down to the particular definition of "minority opinion theory" used. Does it mean that only a minority are of the opinion that it's correct, or only a minority are of the opinion that it's worth pursuing? You could wind up with two very different lists of theories unless it's clarified. Sockatume 17:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A great article that needs expansion

This is a great article that needs expansion. I have offered up a section on Paradigm shift with Good intentions. Often a minority-opinion theory in science becomes a majority-opinion after a Paradigm shift. Let's keep working on this article. ProfessorPaul 01:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)