Slashdot Mirror
Interviews: Ask Freeman Dyson What You Will
Famous for his work in math, astronomy, nuclear engineering, and theoretical physics, Freeman Dyson has left his mark on almost every scientific discipline. He's won countless awards, and written numerous books on a wide range of topics both scientific and philosophical. One of his biggest contributions to science was the unification of the three versions of quantum electrodynamics invented by Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga. 10 years after moving to the U.S. he started working on the Orion Project, which sought to create a spacecraft with a nuclear propulsion system. STNG exposed the idea of a Dyson sphere to the masses, and his hypothetical plan for making a comet habitable with the help of genetically-engineered plants is a personal favorite. Mr. Dyson has graciously agreed give us a bit of his time in order to answer your questions. As usual, ask as many as you'd like, but please, one question per post.
I think you are mistaken about how theories work.
Sorry about the nitpicking, but since this site is fairly science oriented I think it is in order to do so. And since most readers come here to learn, why not learn from me?
In all other areas of life the word theory is interchangeable with "hunch", "idea" and "guesstimation".
In science theory has a much more specific meaning. As I've understood it (swedish being my native tongue where the meaning of similar words differ a bit) you start out with an "idea" coming from thin air or a small amount of evidence, then your formulate a "hypothesis" which is based on your conclusions from the evidence at hand. The hypothesis is then subjected to scientific tests and as the results come back it is tweaked, revised and subjected to new tests. In the end the hypothesis has matured from a more or less well-formulated hunch into a "theory" which proposes that based on the available evidence a certain thing och phenomenon should behave in some certain way when certain conditions are met. I am a bit uncertain of the exact definition of what a scientific "law" is (and as a sport I'm avoiding Wikipedia), but my general perception is that it describes the limits of a studied field (i.e. beyond the speed of light there is crazy stuff, so physicists should stay inside that boundary).
I would have phrased the question I think you're asking like this: What ideas or hypothesis do you believe in (or accept at face value) despite there being a lack of evidence?
Or I might have misunderstood what you are asking about. You might be asking what actual scientific theories do you find reasonable despite there, in your opinion, to date being a lack of evidence in support of? (I.e. do you find it reasonable that humanity cause global warming and do you at the same time think that more studies need to be done to conclusively find an answer?)
I personally think the latter question is a more interesting one!