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."
Exactly. It then stays what it is: a hypothesis, not a theory.
-- Cheers!
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 it can't be verified or falsified by experiment, if it makes no useful predictions, it has no business being published as science. It is, at best, fluff for the academic. Science will go on without the "contributions" of those who propose the unscientific.
Speculation. It's bad form to say hypothesis, because while it doesn't strictly refer to only scientific hypotheses, it is commonly implied. Stop abusing the terminology.
That's probably the biggest fundamental danger with something like String Theory that currently has no method to test; if it effectively becomes dogma over centuries or even decades in the way that the Earth-centric Universe had then it's very, very difficult to undo that even when a new hypothesis with actual compelling evidence is crafted. The problem isn't even necessarily among scientists either, though they can have their doubts, but in a public that doesn't understand the scientific process and is unwilling to accept a scientific challenge to their deeply-held world views and religious perspectives.
I suppose that's why I want scientists to continue working on other hypotheses for the explanation of the fundamental structure of the Universe, so that scientists and the public don't make too many assumptions about what's right versus what's still up for debate.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Was nice while it lasted.
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.
In many ways, we're not so different than the Greeks trying to measure the speed of sound - without good clocks. The Standard Model may be the Taj Mahal of empericism. It has plenty of predictive power, based on lots and lots of observations, but is almost completely lacking in explanitory power. Weight of the electron? Value of the strong nuclear force? Meh, ask me a hard one. Modern physicists today are like people who work in a restaraunt but can never leave. "Damn", they say to each other, "it gets busy like that every day at 12:05. Watch, it'll do it again tomorrow." - such is the state of physics tday - all observation, no explanation, no true understanding why things are that way. Chemistry doesn't have that problem, they can pretty much explain ALL of chemistry from first principles. Of course the Plank distance and energy plus uncertanty put an absolute limit on observation, so, in some ways, we can never get out of the restaraunt.
Cosmologists are in the same boat, just at different scales. Untestable assumptions like "space is uniformly flat everywhere" and "the gravitational constant and the speed of light is the same everywhere and everywhen" lead us to conundrums like Dark Matter(TM) and Dark Energy(TM) just to put a label on the things we are ignorant about because the sums (and assumptions) don't add up.
TL;DR If you have an explanatory story where the math works, I, for one, don't care, and don't think it matters if your story amounts to "it's turtles all the way down". At least then we can start trying to dream up experiments and observations to prove or disprove it. But physics current OBSESSION with empericism has us painted into a corner where we don't have (and may never be able to have) the equipment to come up with defintive answers directed from observation rather than directed from theory.
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.
Since the scientific method for a scientific theory starts with a scientific hypothesis (everything in bold is Greek - i am a Greek by the way) i don't understand why it is "bad form" or "abuse of the terminology" - "hypothesis" is translated to Greek as "speculation" and a "scientific hypothesis" is a (scientific) speculation.
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
I have a different version of the question.
Has the general public set aside empiricism as a standard against which to judge funding appropriations in the name of fundamental scientific progress?
I say no.
The public has not set aside empiricism as part of the social contract through which public money is directed at research institutions. Once the public understands how tenuous empiricism has become among research physicists, the tiny trickle we already provide will only get smaller.
So here's my message to all the modernist physicists out there ready to bury Karl Popper (there were one or two in this year's Edge question): speculate all you want about the non-falsifiable multiverse, but use the Templeton Foundation to fund your chalk supply, and whisper sweet nothings on bent knees so that they also fund your chalk boards, bean bag chairs, and baloney sandwich cafeteria.
It's not like public research funds have nowhere else to go. Proteomics, as difficult as it is, has not yet broken free of its empirical yoke (the complexity of this field begins with the water molecule, and ramps up from there).
We should start with the auto-immune diseases which ought to be simpler systems—if, in fact, they are indeed auto-immune diseases after all.
There really ought to be an entire chapter in Kahneman's next book devoted to the human psychology quirk through which an otherwise sensible person willingly exchanges ten of twenty free physical parameters for 10^500 fiendishly complex initial conditions and calls it a good deal.
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.
You say this like there's some cabal deciding on 'allowing foundational theories into the rest of physics without verification'.
If you look at the Dec. 2014 Nature article that sparked the NYTimes article, you'd see that the concern there isn't even about the conduct of science itself -- it's about the worry that apparent dissent among scientists will fuel anti-scientism. So we'd better work out these 'what's experimentally verifiable' questions far away from the inquiring public.
There's no real worry that somehow the world's best and brightest physicists have forgotten about falsifiability.
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.
in academics.
The problem is that there is a huge oversupply of Ph.D. and Ph.D. candidate labor for the number of positions available pure academic research and institutions.
People that offer incremental improvements or work—just lab stuff, just more data, just duplication research, or slight variations to tease out empirical nuances—are a dime a dozen and struggle to differentiate themselves. Real science is often workman-like and laborious.
On the other hand, if young Ph.D. candidates and people weaving their way through the identity-building process that is a Ph.D. focus on conceptual innovation and performances—ideas, narratives, radical departures—then they are seen as doing something "new" and "innovative" (which somehow has become what science is about in popular discourse, which creeps into academic discourse), and something that sells better in the presses and to the public when the monographs come out, enabling "crossover" works and coverage that is much more lucrative than straight empirical work that gets buried in the journals or small print runs. They also more attendees at the conferences, and by virtue of interviewing and appearing more, get more coverage for the institution that hires them, often doing more to drive prestige and enrollments.
I think market forces play into this in a significant way.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
A "scientific hypothesis" starts as potentially falsifiable - my "criticism" (and/or question) was about the difference (if any) between the terms "speculation" and hypothesis.
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
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.
We may be running into a fundamental limitation of the scientific method. By Goedel's impossibility theorem, for a given set of logical rules and axioms, there will always exist logical constructs which are unprovable - i.e. cannot be determined to be true or false. "This sentence is false." Is it true or false? For a physical analogue, if everything we know about the speed of light is correct, there is no way to ever observe what is inside a black hole. Yet obviously there is something inside. The fact that we can't observe it within the limitations imposed by physics doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It falls into a class of physical phenomena which can't be tested by the scientific method.
I've been trying to explain this to people this for years. Logical truth isn't binary. Every hypothesis (theory, speculation, faith, whatever you want to call it) doesn't resolve into being true or false. They resolve into true, false, or cannot be determined. While by the standards of the scientific method something in the "cannot be determined" category cannot be shown to be true, it is equally erroneous to decide it is false. So contradictory to what many rationalists think, there are actually three categories of belief - scientific truth (belief in things provable by science), superstition (belief in things disproven by science), and what for lack of a better word I'll call supposition (belief in things that cannot be proven nor disproven by science). String theory probably falls into the third category, which is why it's wrong to lump string theorists with the second category simply because it can't be proven by the scientific method.
From a mathematical standpoint, even if string theory is wrong, if it can come up with accurate predictions, it can still be useful and worth pursuing. Early astronomers believed the planets were painted onto spheres, and attempted to define their motion across the sky as a circle within a circle, offset slightly from the observer While we now know that their method was wrong, the predictions these circles came up with were pretty accurate. Basically it's like using a nth order polynomial to fit a set of data points. The phenomenon that created those data points probably isn't a nth order polynomial, but if the polynomial can accurately predict in-between data points, then it doesn't really matter that it's wrong. You just need to be careful of extrapolating outside the data points, or expecting more accuracy from your prediction than the accuracy of your data points.
It's in Wales. I went there once.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."