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."
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.
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.
Mod parent up - he is right on about science becoming a religion. I'm working in astronomical instrumentation (France), and I'm shocked to hear stuff like "we believe that the atmosphere follows von Karman model". Who the f%$# told you that?! You have no evidence of this, yet developing methods based on this shaky assumption. And then they are surprised that it does not work...
No one bothers with preproducibility anymore. I caught my colleagues repeatedly at cheating and outright cooking up results. The articles are written in a way that it is impossible to replicate the methods, let alone simulation/experimental results. I know couple of articles in mathematics that contain non-working algorithms. Those were "peer"-reviewed articles in good journals...
Another desese is called simulations. Good Lord, if only you knew how primitive and wrong those simulations are! I'm sitting right now and for 2 freaking months I'm trying to make a simulator (written by my boss) to work. When it does, those simulations are nowhere near the results he pulished in the paper. Half the questions about the code he answers like "we found THIS to work, but we don't know why". F%$#ing great! Am I in the laboratory of astrophysics, or maybe in astrology and homeopathy lab?
And don't get me even started about those so-called "soft sciences" like sociology...
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!