Logic and Empiricism

quote:

---

If one takes the position that the existence of Strings neccesitates the existence of Branes and Multiverses then one has arrived at a phenomenon that by their very nature is forever beyond our ability to measure or experience yet has a causal influence on the universe in which we exist. One would then be forced to conclude there are phenomeon that are forever beond our ability to experience or measure yet in fact exist in reality.

---

I don't quite understand this. Science takes ideas and tries to expose them to observation by deducing predictions from a theories framework. If the Brane theory has a causal influence on our universe and makes predictions about our directly observable universe, then it can be verified by experience.In this way, Brane theory's validity is determined by experience.

quote:

---

I am not advocating a position or trying to take a position - I was just trying to get a discussion going that might cary over into the main topic of this forum. And yes Stragg - Ultimately I was asking how far is one willing to go with reason alone? What place does reason have in determining truth or value within scientific inquiry?

---

Well, if a theoretical framework makes empirical predictions and one believes in a theory of confirmation, then it would seem that the theories support would have to be increased in the predictions come to fruition.The upshot of this would be that any deduction from this framework would be supported as well, even those which may not be observable in principle. And I don't think this can be considered the use of pure reason ("reason alone") since are judgement of the premises is purely based on empirical principles.And ahoy from the HPS department at the University of Pittsburgh. I studied Bio and Chem in my undergrad and am finishing up my HPS degree/physics minor degree by next spring.