> Again I think you're missing the point. There's many ways in which you can construct theories on any topic. They're all just models: which can be seen by how these models often evolve over time, and yet were at each time seen as fairly valid. This is true in all the sciences, and is inherent to science. You make like that's a criticism of modern physics only, but I think it's more an effect of the point below about measurement.
In science, as opposed to theology, the models in themselves are of no use until they're validated.
Hence the motto of the Royal Society: Nullius in verba. One expects more than words -- one expects experimental showings, or the reasonable expectation of an experimental showing in the very near future. 20th century physics, in the main, had this. It is the cornerstone of all other disciplines.
> in any way: I think this is a mischaracterization. Fitting with the data is a validation in some way.
"In some way" is doing a lot of work there. How many potential fittings from cosmological data are there? 1000? 10^10? 10^500? Do you know?
> That's the thing. These synths look like they work, on paper. The groups and charges move around right, but they don't actually work, which contradicts your point that you can't devise a large number of plausible alternatives in chem.
What are you talking about? You can come up with any number of theoretical retrosyntheses that do work, but are unwieldy, impractical, or can't be validated for any number of reasons -- lack of reagents or intermediates, etc.
You can derive any number of plausible processes. Nobody does that, though, because one is expected to do more -- to come up with something that runs, and ideally to run it and report how it works, with yield rates and so forth.
Similarly, I don't think that the paper in OP has constructed something that runs. It is mere backwards-fitting to cosmological data. The more interesting question, as I've noted, is how many such things are possible.
In science, as opposed to theology, the models in themselves are of no use until they're validated.
Hence the motto of the Royal Society: Nullius in verba. One expects more than words -- one expects experimental showings, or the reasonable expectation of an experimental showing in the very near future. 20th century physics, in the main, had this. It is the cornerstone of all other disciplines.
> in any way: I think this is a mischaracterization. Fitting with the data is a validation in some way.
"In some way" is doing a lot of work there. How many potential fittings from cosmological data are there? 1000? 10^10? 10^500? Do you know?
> That's the thing. These synths look like they work, on paper. The groups and charges move around right, but they don't actually work, which contradicts your point that you can't devise a large number of plausible alternatives in chem.
What are you talking about? You can come up with any number of theoretical retrosyntheses that do work, but are unwieldy, impractical, or can't be validated for any number of reasons -- lack of reagents or intermediates, etc.
You can derive any number of plausible processes. Nobody does that, though, because one is expected to do more -- to come up with something that runs, and ideally to run it and report how it works, with yield rates and so forth.
Similarly, I don't think that the paper in OP has constructed something that runs. It is mere backwards-fitting to cosmological data. The more interesting question, as I've noted, is how many such things are possible.