The Instigator
talacon1
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
phantom
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Would Scientists Ever Accept It If the Theory of Everything were proven?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
phantom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 642 times Debate No: 69193
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

talacon1

Con

I believe that getting the scientific community to accept the Theory of Everything would at least be harder than even finding it. Basically, the Theory of Everything would be an absolute truth if it could be a proven fact. With something like the Theory of Everything, an absolute answer would always be rejected for the sake of a scientist's pride. If it would never be accepted, one must wonder what the point in finding it would be.
phantom

Pro

Physicists are currently embroiled in the task of unraveling the major Gordian knot of modern physics: how to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics. As formulated now, the theories are not compatible, yet both sit firmly as the the twin pillars of modern physics with which our modern understanding of the universe is built upon [2]. Despite the enormous success of both theories, scientists have struggled to make them compatible. However, there are possible answers. Currently, string theory is the front runner in the quest for uniting the two. String theory is a possible contender for a theory of everything but it yet does not have experimental proof.

Would scientists accepting string theory if it were proven? Absolutely! String theory has generated an enormous fervor among physicists. The "dream of a unified theory has become the Holy Grail of modern physics. And a sizable part of the physics and mathematics community is becoming increasingly convinced that string theory may provide the answer. From one principle"that everything at its most microscopic level consists of combinations of vibrating strands"string theory provides a single explanatory framework capable of encompassing all forces and all matter" [1]. A ToE would underlie all other theories. No deeper theory would be needed to explain it. What bigger accomplishment in physics is possible and why would anyone be opposed to such a momentous feat?

Would scientists accept other ToEs. Yes! A ToE would be the greatest scientific accomplishment in history. There should be very few scientists not rooting for one. If a ToE was proven, there might be some who are reluctant to accept it. For example, if an alternative ToE to string theory were proven, those who've devoted their lives to string theory would no doubt feel disappointed that their life"s work was somewhat in vain. But the pressure to accept it would no doubt sway any legitimate scientists. And if not, the next generation of scientists would have no personal reasons for rejecting it, so in time, it would be fully accepted. Even John Horgan who denies the legitimacy of there even being a ToE says he would be delighted if it turned out he was wrong [3]. Those committed to true science would not deny the most grand accomplishment of all science if it were a proven fact.

Con"s argument is that scientists would not accept a theory of everything for the sake of their pride because a theory of everything would be an absolute answer. I"m not really sure why pride would bar scientists from accepting a proven theory, or what it being an absolute answer has anything to do with. In my opinion, it would be far more hindering to a scientists" image for them to reject proven scientific facts. How could a scientists protect their pride by denying what"s been proven: especially since it's been sought after so enthusiastically by modern physicists? Con's argument only makes sense of the scientific community is opposed to a ToE, which is far from the case.

Sources

[1] http://www.pbs.org...
[2] http://link.springer.com...
[3] http://longbets.org...
Debate Round No. 1
talacon1

Con

talacon1 forfeited this round.
phantom

Pro

Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
talacon1

Con

talacon1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
talacon1

Con

I honestly wanted to do something more than debate this. Either way it doesn't matter to me as long as this was posted and debated. The outcome is irrelevant to me.
phantom

Pro

Con's arguments are nonsense and he's forfeited twice, so I don't see what he's pleased with.

Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
talacon1

Con

talacon1 forfeited this round.
phantom

Pro

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by talacon1 2 years ago
talacon1
That would be the Unified Field Theory, the hypothesis that Einstein could not prove.
Posted by DawkinsNeedsToDJ 2 years ago
DawkinsNeedsToDJ
Please elaborate on "Theory Of Everything".
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
talacon1phantomTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff