Slashdot Mirror
Have Some Physicists Abandoned the Empirical Method?
HughPickens.com writes: Adam Frank and Marcelo Gleiser write in the NY Times that two leading researchers, George Ellis and Joseph Silk, recently published a controversial piece called "Scientific Method: Defend the Integrity of Physics," that criticized a newfound willingness among some scientists to explicitly set aside the need for experimental confirmation of today's most ambitious cosmic theories — so long as those theories are "sufficiently elegant and explanatory." Whether or not you agree with them, Ellis and Silk have identified a mounting concern in fundamental physics: Today, our most ambitious science can seem at odds with the empirical methodology that has historically given physics its credibility.
Quoting: "Chief among the 'elegance will suffice' advocates are some string theorists. Because string theory is supposedly the 'only game in town' capable of unifying the four fundamental forces, they believe that it must contain a grain of truth even though it relies on extra dimensions that we can never observe. Some cosmologists, too, are seeking to abandon experimental verification of grand hypotheses that invoke imperceptible domains such as the kaleidoscopic multiverse (comprising myriad universes), the 'many worlds' version of quantum reality (in which observations spawn parallel branches of reality) and pre-Big Bang concepts. These unprovable hypotheses are quite different from those that relate directly to the real world and that are testable through observations — such as the standard model of particle physics and the existence of dark matter and dark energy. As we see it, theoretical physics risks becoming a no-man's-land between mathematics, physics and philosophy that does not truly meet the requirements of any."
Richard Dawid argues that physics, or at least parts of it, are about to enter an era of post-empirical science. "How are we to determine whether a theory is true if it cannot be validated experimentally," ask Frank and Gleiser. "Are superstrings and the multiverse, painstakingly theorized by hundreds of brilliant scientists, anything more than modern-day epicycles?"
Quoting: "Chief among the 'elegance will suffice' advocates are some string theorists. Because string theory is supposedly the 'only game in town' capable of unifying the four fundamental forces, they believe that it must contain a grain of truth even though it relies on extra dimensions that we can never observe. Some cosmologists, too, are seeking to abandon experimental verification of grand hypotheses that invoke imperceptible domains such as the kaleidoscopic multiverse (comprising myriad universes), the 'many worlds' version of quantum reality (in which observations spawn parallel branches of reality) and pre-Big Bang concepts. These unprovable hypotheses are quite different from those that relate directly to the real world and that are testable through observations — such as the standard model of particle physics and the existence of dark matter and dark energy. As we see it, theoretical physics risks becoming a no-man's-land between mathematics, physics and philosophy that does not truly meet the requirements of any."
Richard Dawid argues that physics, or at least parts of it, are about to enter an era of post-empirical science. "How are we to determine whether a theory is true if it cannot be validated experimentally," ask Frank and Gleiser. "Are superstrings and the multiverse, painstakingly theorized by hundreds of brilliant scientists, anything more than modern-day epicycles?"
If you can't test a hypothesis by experiment, then it's nothing more than speculation.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It is disturbing that the problem is starting to effect physics. They should have been a bastion of resistance. Though, if the softness is in the cosmology department than that is more understandable.
In any case, if they're not backing up their theories with empirical observation or experimentation then it isn't science... at all.
So that has to happen.
This reminds me of when I heard some journalists say "it is impossible to be objective so there is no point trying. Take sides."... that's not journalism.
No one said your jobs were easy. But you have to play by the rules or you're not doing your job.
Scientists need to base their theories on empirical observation or experimentation.
Journalists need to control conflicts of interest and be as objective as they can... and where it isn't possible and there is no one else to report on the issue, at the very least declare your bias.
This nonsense is a bit like a judge saying he doesn't need to worry about conflicts of interest. Or when police officers say they don't need to give people due process.
You have to go through a process to be doing your job in these professions. You go through the process and you're a scientist, a journalist, a judge, a police officer.
If you don't... then you're just some asshole walking around with a badge that doesn't mean anything.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Question: Are some physicists theoretical physicists while others are experimental physicists?
Answer: Duh...
IF you are not willing to even entertain the idea of trying to back up your ideas with the scientific method you are not a scientist. You are a philosopher. For the longest time 'Aether' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories) was considered an elegant solution. The scientific method proved it to be bollocks. BUT if every scientist simply went 'yeah that is a simple and elegant solution' Aether would still be considered a valid scientific idea. That is what separates scientists from navel gazers.
If they make predictions about things that are inherently unfalsifiable, the theories should be stripped down to respect that boundary.
If they make predictions about things that are falsifiable, but not within our reach to test at present, then keep all the theories.
There's no problem at all with being a mathematician or a philosopher of science. I'm a physicist, and I don't think any of my colleagues would argue that these fields should go away or that physicists shouldn't work in them. Emmy Noether is a great example of how people outside physics can help develop new physics.
But... relativity wasn't accepted until it was tested. Neither should any other theory coming out of advanced mathematics. Simply being around for a long time is not enough to move a set of math from clever speculation into physics. We've been down this path before. Allowing foundational theories to be integrated into the rest of physics without verification might end up fine, or it might waste the careers of a generation of physicists. Today, that also might mean many billions of dollars of funding and significant public trust.
A scientific hypothesis is, by definition, falsifiable. I've never liked the word "testable": some of the greatest confirmations in the history of science were simply observations of the universe around us, not "tests" one could run in the lab. From the observation of gravitational lensing during an eclipse as predicted by general relativity, to the CMBR temperature curve matching the blackbody curve, as predicted by the big bang theory, many of humanity's "science: it works, bitches" moments weren't "tests".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
If it can't be falsified, it's not even a scientific hypothesis. It's storytelling. It may be a very pretty story, or like String Theory it may be an artless sprawl of a story, but it's not science. It's not a theory until it's made enough predictions, predictions that differed from the null hypothesis, yet turned out to be true, to have gained widespread acceptance.
Yes, sure, stories can be valuable, can inspire, can teach. But we don't call that "science".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The problem though, is that we might be approaching the limits of what is testable in modern physics by non-godlike beings. Yes, some supercollider might find something new that's inconsistent with superstring or alternative hypothesis, hence disproving them.
But we might also never find anything new at all. It's not impossible that we have already discovered all the fundamental particles that exist, or that those remaining would require the controlled annihilation of entire galaxies to create (aka the exertions of godlike beings). In which case our experiments could invalidate any hypotheses which *requires* intermediate particles, but sufficiently broad or untestable hypotheses (such as superstrings, taken as a class) would remain forever unfalsified.
Of course the flip side is that if we are entering such a period, then it's largely irrelevant what theories we adopt. So long as they're consistent with observable reality, that's all that really matters. With a couple caveats:
1) If the accepted theory actively discourages research in directions that *would* reveal new physics, we have a problem.
2) If the theories remain broadly accepted for long enough (many generations?) then there is a danger that if conflicting data is eventually found it will be rejected or suppressed. Many a researcher has had their career devastated by making claims inconsistent with accepted science, especially if the results can't be consistently replicated (a hallmark of new phenomena where we don't actually understand what's happening, but *something* seems to be). Fleischmann and Pons spring to mind - granted they did a particularly irresponsible job of releasing their findings, but follow-up research does continue to dangle tantalizing hints that under certain poorly-understood conditions fusion does occur.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
A "scientific hypothesis" starts as potentially falsifiable - my "criticism" (and/or question) was about the difference (if any) between the terms "speculation" and hypothesis.
A hypothesis that is not testable or falsifiable is a belief. Whether that belief is about a deity or abstract theory, doesn't matter.