The Instigator
MrWizard
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
van114
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Is String Theory A Science?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/3/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 987 times Debate No: 17752
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

MrWizard

Con

Everyday string theorists loosely misuse the word theory, thanks to the longterm effect of giving the unintelligible media rather speculative untestable ideas and treating them as science "documentary" rather than pseudo scientific claims, this distortion of public perception of science undermines the credibility of theoretical physics.

Before I get to the heart of the matter, it is a necessary to give scientific theory a proper definition. Scientific theory is a law which has been observed using experiments or mathematical formulas and can be modified with updated observations, what string theorists are stuck on is a theory in-development.

String Theory shouldn't be known as String Theory, but String Hypothesis. These people bet a theory's life on an outcome of some future experiment or observation that hasn't been made yet. If the predicted result is not seen, the theory is dead.

You may ask any theorist who is working on some model this question: can you describe an experiment which has not been done yet where one possible outcome would make you abandon what you are working on? If he/she is unable, then the ideas are still half-baked, not yet a scientific theory.

You may say that a lot of physicists agree on it and it has gained popularity that way. On the contrary, other unscientifically claimed things have gained popularity (eg. beliefs, homeopathy, etc.) it doesn't make them anymore correct. Scientists normally don't delve too deep if there is no supporting argument, the reason is people jumped on the bandwagon for pure monetary gain, and string theory used the argument from not being a disproved method to stay alive. "If you can't disprove it, it must exist." Doesn't that sound like a belief, and not a scientific theory?
van114

Pro

String Theory, if true, would revolutionize the scientific thought. There are many different variations of String Theory (we will just talk of String Theory in general), and all have exciting possibilities. It would be the most fundamental theory of physics and would also finally unify the gravitational force with the other three fundamental forces, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and electromagnetism. We would also know what the most fundamental particle in the Universe is. We currently have no idea what it is, but different fundamental particles have been postulated since the time of Ancient Greece. Pythagoreans thought the Universe was made of numbers, Leibniz postulated monads, Plato hypothesized triangles (or the five regular polygons, depends), and the electron, proton, and neutron were once thought to be the most fundamental particles. String Theory would solve this problem as strings would take the crown of tiniest.
Debate Round No. 1
MrWizard

Con

MrWizard forfeited this round.
van114

Pro

String Theory, if true, would revolutionize the scientific thought. There are many different variations of String Theory (we will just talk of String Theory in general), and all have exciting possibilities. It would be the most fundamental theory of physics and would also finally unify the gravitational force with the other three fundamental forces, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and electromagnetism.

We would also know what the most fundamental particle in the Universe is. We currently have no idea what it is, but different fundamental particles have been postulated since the time of Ancient Greece. Pythagoreans thought the Universe was made of numbers, Leibniz postulated monads, Plato hypothesized triangles (or the five regular polygons, depends), and the electron, proton, and neutron were once thought to be the most fundamental particles. String Theory would solve this problem as strings would take the crown of tiniest.
Debate Round No. 2
MrWizard

Con

MrWizard forfeited this round.
van114

Pro

My oppenent clearly can not keep up with me.
Debate Round No. 3
MrWizard

Con

MrWizard forfeited this round.
van114

Pro

van114 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
MrWizard

Con

MrWizard forfeited this round.
van114

Pro

My Oponent clearly cannot keep up. He has no idea of what he talking about so he Qui9t on me.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
MrWizardvan114Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: It's unfortunate to see that van114 took the oppoturnity to boast and belittle his opponents. Apparently, he was forfeiting on purpose or selectively...
Vote Placed by CD-Host 5 years ago
CD-Host
MrWizardvan114Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: MrWizard lost by forfeit. Neither side seemed to know what it was talking about but pro was closer. Neither side used sources.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
MrWizardvan114Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
MrWizardvan114Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Everyone loses.