DOCSLIB.ORG

Science Vs. Pseudoscience: Where Is the Difference?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Science Vs. Pseudoscience: Where Is the Difference? SCIENCE VS. PSEUDOSCIENCE: WHERE IS THE DIFFERENCE? John Casti (in Paradigms Lost) provided an tends to emphasize the existence and sup- excellent summary of the characteristics of posed unsolvability of mysteries. This is a pseudo-science, which I briefly discuss here as rather sterile position, since if a mystery is a user-friendly guide for critical thinking. Phi- by definition insoluble, then why wasting losopher Karl Popper proposed his criterion of ones’ time thinking about it? falsification as a way to distinguish between science and pseudoscience. The idea is that sci- 3. Appeals to myths. This is the idea that an- ence makes falsifiable predictions, while pseu- cient myths must be based on some kind of doscience does not because one can always go real events, which became distorted in the back and modify the prediction a posteriori so course of oral transmission from generation that it fits the facts. Unfortunately for Popper, to generation. While this can certainly hap- the demarcation problem is not so simple to re- pen, just because some cultures share solve, mostly because science itself does not (usually superficially) similar myths, that follow what I have termed above “naïve” falsi- does not imply that the underlying events ficationism. A better way to think about this are the same, or even ever happened. An problem is as a continuum from “hard” sciences alternative explanation is that human minds such as physics and chemistry (where experi- tend to work in a similar fashion, and there- mental manipulation is possible) to “soft” ones fore provide similar explanations for things like biology and geology (where the element of they do not understand. historicity becomes more heavy) to proto- scientific disciplines (most of the social sci- 4. Casual approach to evidence. Evidence is ences, for which often overarching theories are the cornerstone that sets aside science from lacking or difficult to support empirically) to any other human intellectual endeavor, in- clear pseudosciences such as astrology and cluding (to a large extent) philosophy. parapsychology (where not only the theory is Given its pivotal role, admissible evidence unsound when compared to anything else we has to be solid and reliable. If we cite a know about the functioning of the universe, but “fact,” we have to be reasonably sure that it the empirical evidence clearly rejects the claims indeed corresponds to a verifiable piece of of the discipline’s practitioners). Here is Casti’s evidence. Hearsay is not admissible. set of criteria for distinguishing between sci- ence and pseudoscience: 5. Irrefutable hypotheses. Scientific progress can be made only if a hypothesis is at least 1. Anachronistic thinking. If an argument is potentially open to dismissal. If your hy- based on the wisdom of the ancients (who, pothesis is not refutable (i.e., falsifiable) no remember, knew much less about the world matter what the evidence, then it is useless than any junior high school graduate (of course, it may still be true, but there is should), or on the use of outmoded scien- no way to verify it). tific terminology, there is good reason to be suspicious. 6. Spurious similarities. A very insidious trap of human thinking is drawing parallels be- 2. Seeking mysteries. While science’s objec- tween concepts or phenomena that seem tive is to solve mysteries, pseudo-science reasonable, and that require an in-depth analysis to be verified or discarded. For ex- ample, one can draw mystical significance gers will repeat the same arguments in sup- from the fact that one’s car plate number is port of their profession. Science is a process the same as one’s civic address. But a mo- of a completely different nature, where the ment of reflection would easily lead you to primary element is continuous revision and conclude that this is simply a coincidence. correction to accommodate new evidence. In other cases, however, the parallel may seem more compelling. In general, simi- 10. Shift the burden of proof on the other side. larities can yield genuine insights into the The reader should be weary of statements matter under consideration, but they re- such as “but it has not been disproved.” First, quire a higher standard of verification than there are simply not enough scientists and the one provided by a first intuition. funding to verify or disprove every claim that has ever been made. That is not positive evi- 7. Explanation by scenario. It is pretty easy, dence for that claim, however, but simply of if one has just a little bit of imagination, to our ignorance (or disinterest) on the matter. explain something by telling a story, that is Second, when one proposes an alternative to by imagining a reasonable scenario. Scien- a very well established theory, the burden of tists are sometimes guilty of this practice proof is logically and squarely on the side of (widespread, for example, among evolu- the newcomer. When Copernicus suggested tionary psychologists). In fact, scenarios that the Earth rotates around the Sun, and not can be useful, because they may point the vice versa, people did not just believe him inquiry in the right direction. However, because nobody had proven him wrong (on when scenarios remain just-so stories, not the contrary, most people did not even con- backed by data, they are not useful tools sider his arguments!). Other astronomers de- because many scenarios can be proposed to manded evidence, and it took more than a explain the same data, but presumably only century for the theory to be accepted. one is actually correct. 11. A theory is legitimate simply because it’s 8. Research by literary interpretation. This new, alternative, or daring. This is the occurs when the proponent of a pseudo- “Galileo” effect. Proponents of new theories scientific position claims that statements are fond of recalling the many examples of by scientists are open to alternative, scientists who had been derided, ignored, or equally valid interpretations. This ap- worse persecuted because of their radical proach treats scientific literature as one theories, which then proved to be correct. might consider a novel or a painting: no What this line of reasoning ignores, of one interpretation (not even the one es- course, is the fact that for every Galileo who poused by the author!) is necessarily better eventually succeeded there were thousands of than any other. In science, this is a far cry crackpots who did not. For every example of from the reality of things. Scientific state- a daring, new scientific theory which ends up ments are the more useful the more precise being accepted, there are many, many exam- and unambiguous they are. Ideally, a scien- ples of wrong theories, forever rejected and tific hypothesis or theory should have one confined to the limbo of pseudoscientific his- and only one possible interpretation, and tory. Novelty per se is no evidence. this is either correct or not. 9. Refusal to revise. One of the hallmarks of (text by Dr. Massimo Pigliucci, pseudoscience is the refusal to revise one’s University of Tennessee) own positions in the face of new evidence. No matter how many studies are conducted Distributed by Skeptic & Humanist Web on the ineffectiveness of astrology, astrolo- www.rationallyspeaking.org .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Science Standards
    SCIENCE It is the policy of the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) not to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, or disability in its programs or employment practices as required by Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Civil rights compliance inquiries related to the OSDE may be directed to the Affirmative Action Officer, Room 111, 2500 North Lincoln Boulevard, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105-4599, telephone number (405) 522-4930; or, the United States Department of Education’s Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. Inquires or concerns regarding compliance with Title IX by local school districts should be presented to the local school district Title IX coordinator. This publication, printed by the State Department of Education Printing Services, is issued by the Oklahoma State Department of Education as authorized by 70 O.S. § 3-104. Five hundred copies have been prepared using Title I, Part A, School Improvement funds at a cost of $.15 per copy. Copies have been deposited with the Publications Clearinghouse of the Oklahoma Department of Libraries. DECEMBER 2013. SCIENCE Table of Contents 5-8 Introduction 9 K-5 Overview 10-18 ■ KINDERGARTEN 19-28 ■ 1ST GRADE 29-39 ■ 2ND GRADE 40-54 ■ 3RD GRADE 55-68 ■ 4TH GRADE 69-82 ■ 5TH GRADE 83 6-12 Overview 84-101 ■ 6TH GRADE 102-119 ■ 7TH GRADE 120-137 ■ 8TH GRADE 138-152 ■ PHYSICAL SCIENCE 153-165 ■ CHEMISTRY 166-181 ■ PHYSICS 182-203 ■ BIOLOGY I 204-219 ■ EARTH & SPACE SCIENCE 220-235 ■ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE Introduction Science uses observation and experimentation to explain natural phenomena.
    [Show full text]
  • Would ''Direct Realism'' Resolve the Classical Problem of Induction?
    NOU^S 38:2 (2004) 197–232 Would ‘‘Direct Realism’’ Resolve the Classical Problem of Induction? MARC LANGE University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill I Recently, there has been a modest resurgence of interest in the ‘‘Humean’’ problem of induction. For several decades following the recognized failure of Strawsonian ‘‘ordinary-language’’ dissolutions and of Wesley Salmon’s elaboration of Reichenbach’s pragmatic vindication of induction, work on the problem of induction languished. Attention turned instead toward con- firmation theory, as philosophers sensibly tried to understand precisely what it is that a justification of induction should aim to justify. Now, however, in light of Bayesian confirmation theory and other developments in epistemology, several philosophers have begun to reconsider the classical problem of induction. In section 2, I shall review a few of these developments. Though some of them will turn out to be unilluminating, others will profitably suggest that we not meet inductive scepticism by trying to justify some alleged general principle of ampliative reasoning. Accordingly, in section 3, I shall examine how the problem of induction arises in the context of one particular ‘‘inductive leap’’: the confirmation, most famously by Henrietta Leavitt and Harlow Shapley about a century ago, that a period-luminosity relation governs all Cepheid variable stars. This is a good example for the inductive sceptic’s purposes, since it is difficult to see how the sparse background knowledge available at the time could have entitled stellar astronomers to regard their observations as justifying this grand inductive generalization. I shall argue that the observation reports that confirmed the Cepheid period- luminosity law were themselves ‘‘thick’’ with expectations regarding as yet unknown laws of nature.
    [Show full text]
  • There Is No Pure Empirical Reasoning
    There Is No Pure Empirical Reasoning 1. Empiricism and the Question of Empirical Reasons Empiricism may be defined as the view there is no a priori justification for any synthetic claim. Critics object that empiricism cannot account for all the kinds of knowledge we seem to possess, such as moral knowledge, metaphysical knowledge, mathematical knowledge, and modal knowledge.1 In some cases, empiricists try to account for these types of knowledge; in other cases, they shrug off the objections, happily concluding, for example, that there is no moral knowledge, or that there is no metaphysical knowledge.2 But empiricism cannot shrug off just any type of knowledge; to be minimally plausible, empiricism must, for example, at least be able to account for paradigm instances of empirical knowledge, including especially scientific knowledge. Empirical knowledge can be divided into three categories: (a) knowledge by direct observation; (b) knowledge that is deductively inferred from observations; and (c) knowledge that is non-deductively inferred from observations, including knowledge arrived at by induction and inference to the best explanation. Category (c) includes all scientific knowledge. This category is of particular import to empiricists, many of whom take scientific knowledge as a sort of paradigm for knowledge in general; indeed, this forms a central source of motivation for empiricism.3 Thus, if there is any kind of knowledge that empiricists need to be able to account for, it is knowledge of type (c). I use the term “empirical reasoning” to refer to the reasoning involved in acquiring this type of knowledge – that is, to any instance of reasoning in which (i) the premises are justified directly by observation, (ii) the reasoning is non- deductive, and (iii) the reasoning provides adequate justification for the conclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comprehensive Framework to Reinforce Evidence Synthesis Features in Cloud-Based Systematic Review Tools
    applied sciences Article A Comprehensive Framework to Reinforce Evidence Synthesis Features in Cloud-Based Systematic Review Tools Tatiana Person 1,* , Iván Ruiz-Rube 1 , José Miguel Mota 1 , Manuel Jesús Cobo 1 , Alexey Tselykh 2 and Juan Manuel Dodero 1 1 Department of Informatics Engineering, University of Cadiz, 11519 Puerto Real, Spain; [email protected] (I.R.-R.); [email protected] (J.M.M.); [email protected] (M.J.C.); [email protected] (J.M.D.) 2 Department of Information and Analytical Security Systems, Institute of Computer Technologies and Information Security, Southern Federal University, 347922 Taganrog, Russia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Systematic reviews are powerful methods used to determine the state-of-the-art in a given field from existing studies and literature. They are critical but time-consuming in research and decision making for various disciplines. When conducting a review, a large volume of data is usually generated from relevant studies. Computer-based tools are often used to manage such data and to support the systematic review process. This paper describes a comprehensive analysis to gather the required features of a systematic review tool, in order to support the complete evidence synthesis process. We propose a framework, elaborated by consulting experts in different knowledge areas, to evaluate significant features and thus reinforce existing tool capabilities. The framework will be used to enhance the currently available functionality of CloudSERA, a cloud-based systematic review Citation: Person, T.; Ruiz-Rube, I.; Mota, J.M.; Cobo, M.J.; Tselykh, A.; tool focused on Computer Science, to implement evidence-based systematic review processes in Dodero, J.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Mothers in Science
    The aim of this book is to illustrate, graphically, that it is perfectly possible to combine a successful and fulfilling career in research science with motherhood, and that there are no rules about how to do this. On each page you will find a timeline showing on one side, the career path of a research group leader in academic science, and on the other side, important events in her family life. Each contributor has also provided a brief text about their research and about how they have combined their career and family commitments. This project was funded by a Rosalind Franklin Award from the Royal Society 1 Foreword It is well known that women are under-represented in careers in These rules are part of a much wider mythology among scientists of science. In academia, considerable attention has been focused on the both genders at the PhD and post-doctoral stages in their careers. paucity of women at lecturer level, and the even more lamentable The myths bubble up from the combination of two aspects of the state of affairs at more senior levels. The academic career path has academic science environment. First, a quick look at the numbers a long apprenticeship. Typically there is an undergraduate degree, immediately shows that there are far fewer lectureship positions followed by a PhD, then some post-doctoral research contracts and than qualified candidates to fill them. Second, the mentors of early research fellowships, and then finally a more stable lectureship or career researchers are academic scientists who have successfully permanent research leader position, with promotion on up the made the transition to lectureships and beyond.
    [Show full text]
  • Comment Fundamentalism and Science
    SISSA – International School for Advanced Studies Journal of Science Communication ISSN 1824 – 2049 http://jcom.sissa.it/ Comment Fundamentalism and science Massimo Pigliucci The many facets of fundamentalism. There has been much talk about fundamentalism of late. While most people's thought on the topic go to the 9/11 attacks against the United States, or to the ongoing war in Iraq, fundamentalism is affecting science and its relationship to society in a way that may have dire long-term consequences. Of course, religious fundamentalism has always had a history of antagonism with science, and – before the birth of modern science – with philosophy, the age-old vehicle of the human attempt to exercise critical thinking and rationality to solve problems and pursue knowledge. “Fundamentalism” is defined by the Oxford Dictionary of the Social Sciences 1 as “A movement that asserts the primacy of religious values in social and political life and calls for a return to a 'fundamental' or pure form of religion.” In its broadest sense, however, fundamentalism is a form of ideological intransigence which is not limited to religion, but includes political positions as well (for example, in the case of some extreme forms of “environmentalism”). In the United States, the main version of the modern conflict between science and religious fundamentalism is epitomized by the infamous Scopes trial that occurred in 1925 in Tennessee, when the teaching of evolution was challenged for the first time 2,3. That battle is still being fought, for example in Dover, Pennsylvania, where at the time of this writing a court of law is considering the legitimacy of teaching “intelligent design” (a form of creationism) in public schools.
    [Show full text]
  • A Natural Case for Realism: Processes, Structures, and Laws Andrew Michael Winters University of South Florida, [email protected]
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 3-20-2015 A Natural Case for Realism: Processes, Structures, and Laws Andrew Michael Winters University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the Philosophy of Science Commons Scholar Commons Citation Winters, Andrew Michael, "A Natural Case for Realism: Processes, Structures, and Laws" (2015). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/5603 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Natural Case for Realism: Processes, Structures, and Laws by Andrew Michael Winters A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Co-Major Professor: Douglas Jesseph, Ph.D. Co-Major Professor: Alexander Levine, Ph.D. Roger Ariew, Ph.D. Otávio Bueno, Ph.D. John Carroll, Ph.D. Eric Winsberg, Ph.D. Date of Approval: March 20th, 2015 Keywords: Metaphysics, Epistemology, Naturalism, Ontology Copyright © 2015, Andrew Michael Winters DEDICATION For Amie ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thank you to my co-chairs, Doug Jesseph and Alex Levine, for providing amazing support in all aspects of my tenure at USF. I greatly appreciate the numerous conversations with my committee members, Roger Ariew, Otávio Bueno, John Carroll, and Eric Winsberg, which resulted in a (hopefully) more refined and clearer dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • How Science Works
    PB 1 How science works The Scientific Method is traditionally presented in the first chapter of science text- books as a simple recipe for performing scientific investigations. Though many use- ful points are embodied in this method, it can easily be misinterpreted as linear and “cookbook”: pull a problem off the shelf, throw in an observation, mix in a few ques- tions, sprinkle on a hypothesis, put the whole mixture into a 350° experiment—and voila, 50 minutes later you’ll be pulling a conclusion out of the oven! That might work if science were like Hamburger Helper®, but science is complex and cannot be re- duced to a single, prepackaged recipe. The linear, stepwise representation of the process of science is simplified, but it does get at least one thing right. It captures the core logic of science: testing ideas with evidence. However, this version of the scientific method is so simplified and rigid that it fails to accurately portray how real science works. It more accurately describes how science is summarized after the fact—in textbooks and journal articles—than how sci- ence is actually done. The simplified, linear scientific method implies that scientific studies follow an unvarying, linear recipe. But in reality, in their work, scientists engage in many different activities in many different sequences. Scientific investigations often involve repeating the same steps many times to account for new information and ideas. The simplified, linear scientific method implies that science is done by individual scientists working through these steps in isolation. But in reality, science depends on interactions within the scientific community.
    [Show full text]
  • Pragmatism Is As Pragmatism Does: of Posner, Public Policy, and Empirical Reality
    Volume 31 Issue 3 Summer 2001 Summer 2001 Pragmatism Is as Pragmatism Does: Of Posner, Public Policy, and Empirical Reality Linda E. Fisher Recommended Citation Linda E. Fisher, Pragmatism Is as Pragmatism Does: Of Posner, Public Policy, and Empirical Reality, 31 N.M. L. Rev. 455 (2001). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmlr/vol31/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The University of New Mexico School of Law. For more information, please visit the New Mexico Law Review website: www.lawschool.unm.edu/nmlr PRAGMATISM IS AS PRAGMATISM DOES: OF POSNER, PUBLIC POLICY, AND EMPIRICAL REALITY LINDA E. FISHER* Stanley Fish believes that my judicial practice could not possibly be influenced by my pragmatic jurisprudence. Pragmatism is purely a method of description, so I am guilty of the "mistake of thinking that a description of a practice has cash value in a game other than the game of description." But he gives no indication that he has tested this assertion by reading my judicial opinions.' I. INTRODUCTION Richard Posner, until recently the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, has been much studied; he is frequently controversial, hugely prolific, candid, and often entertaining.2 Judge Posner is repeatedly in the news, most recently as a mediator in the Microsoft antitrust litigation3 and as a critic of President Clinton.4 Posner's shift over time, from a wealth-maximizing economist to a legal pragmatist (with wealth maximization as a prominent pragmatic goal), is by now well documented.' This shift has been set forth most clearly in The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory,6 as well as Overcoming Law7 and The Problems of Jurisprudence.8 The main features of his pragmatism include a Holmesian emphasis on law as a prediction of how a judge will rule.9 An important feature of law, then, is its ability to provide clear, stable guidance to those affected by it.
    [Show full text]
  • ”What Is It Like to Be a Robot?” Review of David Mcfarland's Guilty Robots, Happy Dogs
    :KDW,V,W/LNHWR%HD5RERW" *XLOW\5RERWV+DSS\'RJV7KH4XHVWLRQRI$OLHQ0LQGVE\'DYLG0F)DUODQG 5HYLHZE\'DQLHO&'HQQHWW %LR6FLHQFH9RO1R 6HSWHPEHU SS 3XEOLVKHGE\University of California PressRQEHKDOIRIWKHAmerican Institute of Biological Sciences 6WDEOH85/http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/bio.2009.59.8.14 . $FFHVVHG Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. University of California Press and American Institute of Biological Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to BioScience. http://www.jstor.org Fall Focus on Books learn to appreciate some of the advances respect, that they go back to Harvard out the terrain using what you already and controversies in evolutionary de- Press and propose to use the current know to interpret what you find. For- velopmental biology while reading Greg version of their book as the seed for a tunately, David McFarland has chosen Wray. Then again, there is no essay on community-wide, online, open-ended the second option in Guilty Robots, the role of phenotypic plasticity in evo- effort. Of course, it would also be nice if Happy Dogs: The Question of Alien lution, a topic that has acquired central it were open access, but that’s another Minds, and there is much food for status during the past two decades; after story.
    [Show full text]
  • A WIN-WIN SOLUTION the Empirical Evidence on School Choice FOURTH EDITION Greg Forster, Ph.D
    A WIN-WIN SOLUTION The Empirical Evidence on School Choice FOURTH EDITION Greg Forster, Ph.D. MAY 2016 About the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, solely dedicated to advancing Milton and Rose Friedman’s vision of school choice for all children. First established as the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation in 1996, the Foundation promotes school choice as the most effective and equitable way to improve the quality of K–12 education in America. The Friedman Foundation is dedicated to research, education, and outreach on the vital issues and implications related to school choice. A WIN-WIN SOLUTION The Empirical Evidence on School Choice FOURTH EDITION Greg Forster, Ph.D. MAY 2016 Table of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................3 Choice in Education .................................................................................................................3 Why Science Matters—the “Gold Standard” and Other Methods ....................................4 The Method of This Report .....................................................................................................6 Criteria for Study Inclusion or Exclusion .......................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Sacred Rhetorical Invention in the String Theory Movement
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Communication Studies Theses, Dissertations, and Student Research Communication Studies, Department of Spring 4-12-2011 Secular Salvation: Sacred Rhetorical Invention in the String Theory Movement Brent Yergensen University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/commstuddiss Part of the Speech and Rhetorical Studies Commons Yergensen, Brent, "Secular Salvation: Sacred Rhetorical Invention in the String Theory Movement" (2011). Communication Studies Theses, Dissertations, and Student Research. 6. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/commstuddiss/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Communication Studies, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Communication Studies Theses, Dissertations, and Student Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. SECULAR SALVATION: SACRED RHETORICAL INVENTION IN THE STRING THEORY MOVEMENT by Brent Yergensen A DISSERTATION Presented to the Faculty of The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Major: Communication Studies Under the Supervision of Dr. Ronald Lee Lincoln, Nebraska April, 2011 ii SECULAR SALVATION: SACRED RHETORICAL INVENTION IN THE STRING THEORY MOVEMENT Brent Yergensen, Ph.D. University of Nebraska, 2011 Advisor: Ronald Lee String theory is argued by its proponents to be the Theory of Everything. It achieves this status in physics because it provides unification for contradictory laws of physics, namely quantum mechanics and general relativity. While based on advanced theoretical mathematics, its public discourse is growing in prevalence and its rhetorical power is leading to a scientific revolution, even among the public.
    [Show full text]