They're not currently falsifiable. Does he label them "unfounded speculation?" My suspicion is that he doesn't.

I wonder if he labels Freud's ideas about the id, ego and superego to be "unfounded speculation." I suspect that he does.

If both of my suspicions are correct, I'd like to know how he differentiates between these different ideas.

They both seem very bright and sincere, and I think it would be interesting to see them explore other issues, including those you outline.

Hi Jim,

I was just wondering what comes up when I google my name, found your question addressed to me and thought I'd reply. Not interested in a debate, just clarifying my view.

A point I was trying to make in that article is that "unfounded speculation" is not actually bad or unscientific. It is an essential starting point of science, a way for creativity to enter the scientific process!

Your suspicion here was incorrect: my view is that multiverse and string theories are indeed "unfounded speculation". And lo and behold, most scientists (including myself) don't treat them as if they were true. There's nothing wrong with putting ideas out there, especially internally consistent ones, and nothing wrong with individuals entertaining them as what-ifs. As I said in the article, speculation is FUN, as long as we are able to distinguish it from reality when making decisions.

For me, that's a big distinction: no one is using string theory/multiverse concepts to make decisions in their lives. On the other hand, Freud's ideas are being used this way. (I'll adopt your claim that they're unfalsifiable; I'm not sure of that as I'm no expert - I thought much of his speculation was falsified.) Whole *industries* have grown out of the application of Freud's work. Since it specifically regards our emotions, motives and decisions, everyone has a personal stake when evaluating it. Lies and ulterior motivations abound, and it will be a hell of a lot of work to sort out lies from truth.

String theory might be no more correct than Freud's theories, but given the societal context, Freud's speculations are far more dangerous than string theory speculation. Plus, it's certainly easier to evaluate whether a theory is internally consistent when it is not surrounded by emotion, lies and conflicts of interest - so it will be easier for string theory to become subject to the scientific method should future developments enable its falsifiability.

Thanks for reading my articles, by the way!

I am glad that you came by to clarify and discuss.

The best answer I can think of right now is "sometimes for some people."

Some people deny evolution because of their faith, so a conflict is present, while many other faithful people embrace evolution. Additionally, many faithful people clearly label their beliefs as beliefs. There is a difference, in my mind, between the claims "I believe we are reborn here on Earth after we die" and "reincarnation is true," so for me, this is another complication.

While there is clearly a large population in the US where there is a conflict (creationism, as you point out, being one of the biggest), there are also people who embrace both and see them as equal but separate ways of living or experiencing the world.

Such as P. Z. Myers. In his article, When Atheists Behave Like Fundamentalists, Keith Kloor says

let’s make one thing clear: This whole either/or framework that PZ and his acolytes insist on is nothing less than a purity test for atheists. How so? Just look, to cite the most obvious example, the terms of debate they have laid out: If you dare to say (as I do) that religion still has some redeeming qualities for people, you’re branded an “accommodationist.” If you dare to say (as I do) that science and religion can coexist, you’re branded an “accommodationist.”