<Everything in physics has an error bar.>

correct: certainly when we say "proof" we implicitly mean evidence when it comes to physics. Indeed my whole argument is based on the idea of the fundamental impossibility of proofs in our science.

<Also most theorists believe QM holds everywhere, including inside a black hole.>

"Shams: <Keith Dow> I found the review directly below his, by Wesley L. Janssen, more persuasive."

Actually I was referring to his reply to Wesley L. Janssen which is below both posts.

"Scientists, by and large, make poor philosophers of science."

Yes and that is a great virtue.

"Feynman once wrote that "the philosophy of science is about as interesting to most scientists as ornithology is to birds." All well and good, but birds' lack of interest in ornithology doesn't make ornithology unworthy of study, nor does it give birds license to go beyond ornithological models. Scientists are just as good at falling prey to epistemological blunders as anyone else."

I disagree:

Epistemology.

Q. What is knowledge?
A. In physics is is the ability to predict what happens next.

Q. How is knowledge acquired?
A. Theories are developed and tested with experiments.

Q. How do we know what we know?
A. We test our knowledge with experiments.

"Science is very, very good at scientific inquiry, at answering those questions which only science can ask. That's a very different thing than asserting that scientific truth-tests are demonstrably better than any other sort of truth tests. If you disagree, tell me from where those truth-tests come-- from within science, or from somewhere else?"

"<Keith Dow> Are you prepared to argue that governments can spend any amount of money as a percentage of GDP and not have an impact in reducing economic growth?"

You have used a strawman argument. However government spending shot up a lot during WWII and really boosted growth. Also Reagan really boosted spending and shot the economy up. So your basic thesis is wrong.

"Shams: From a third reviewer on the same page:
<As I read Mr Bachman's impassioned rant in defense of science and its noble ideal of seeking the truth, I am reminded of Lord Kelvin's confident assertion in 1900 that <"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.">>"

But just a minute ago you said you seek truth.

<"Scientists, by and large, make poor philosophers of science."

Yes and that is a great virtue.>

I disagree.

<Nobody has found any experimental evidence for string theory, M-theory, etc.>

Right, but they keep looking. Why? Because, as Edward Witten-- you will have heard of him-- says, the standard model makes gravity impossible, while string theory makes it inevitable.

<Q. How do we know what we know? A. We test our knowledge with experiments. >

<Shams: <OCF> says the exact same thing.>

BTW, there's an interesting argument over at chessdotcom about who REALLY invented the lightbulb. Somehow, out of a story showing Morphy's 17 move refutation of the Knight poisoned pawn capture at e4, a heated debate broke out regarding whether or not Edison's lightbulb deserves the patent as the first, working lightbulb.

" <Keith Dow: The Cato institute was founded to put out propaganda that David Koch has paid for. They are a cesspool of information. I am surprised you eat and drink from a cesspool and like it. It you want a counter argument to the Rahn curve, use google. Also Cato doesn't put out real peer reviewed information. They are just a propaganda machine. >

Translation: Factual information I disagree with must be wrong. <patzer> you are truly wasting your time."

No, no no! It's been truly enlightening watching perception from within the bubble explaining how living standards for the average US citizen is better than that of their counterparts in Sweden among other places. It really has, don't stop now!

It's just a pity that isn't the reality. Outside of the bubble that is. *Taps nose* Cloud cuckoo land I believe it was?

<patzer2:>

Let me explain why I said the tea party was naive.

The greatest enemy of free market capitalism isn't socialism but predatory financialism. The United States spends more money on banks than it does on the military. Wall Street used to finance industry. Now it creates paper profits. Economies need to get real.

I am a physicist who has studied the global warming issue in great detail and I am familiar with climate data, theory, and modeling. I can state with certainty that a substantial part of what the Cato Institute puts out on that topic is in error. It is also true that many of those who fund the institute have a financial stake in those conclusions.

<"<Keith Dow> Are you prepared to argue that governments can spend any amount of money as a percentage of GDP and not have an impact in reducing economic growth?"

You have used a strawman argument. However government spending shot up a lot during WWII and really boosted growth. Also Reagan really boosted spending and shot the economy up. So your basic thesis is wrong.> What WWII spending boosted was the government war effort. With price controls and rationing, consumer goods and services were in short supply.

In the post WWII era the US economy boomed as we drastically reduced government spending and taxes.

Also, even Keynes admitted that high levels of government spending in a recession or depression had to be temporary, and could not be sustained over long periods of time.

So, your example of WWII spending proves nothing about the long term sustainability of high levels of government spending and sustained strong economic growth.