BY MASSIMO PIGLIUCCI

THEORY IN
FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS:
THE VIEW FROM THE OUTSIDE
BY MASSIMO PIGLIUCCI

Physics, of course, began as natural philosophy
and there was a time, until recently, when
mother and daughter got along pretty well…

“I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value
of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So
many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me
like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen
a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background
gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation
from which most scientists are suffering. This independence
created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of
distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker
after truth.” (Albert Einstein)

ut then things got weird…

ut then things got weird…

“Philosophy is dead” (Stephen Hawking)
“Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is
to birds” (Richard Feynman)
“The insights of philosophers have occasionally benefited physicists,
but generally in a negative fashion – by protecting them from the
preconceptions of other philosophers” (Steven Weinberg)
“Philosophy is a field that, unfortunately, reminds me of that old
Woody Allen joke, ‘those that can’t do, teach, and those that can’t
teach, teach gym.’ And the worst part of philosophy is the philosophy
of science” (Lawrence Krauss)
“My concern here is that the philosophers believe they are actually
asking deep questions about nature. And to the scientist it’s, what are
you doing? Why are you concerning yourself with the meaning of
meaning?” (Neil DeGrasse Tyson)

and then they got even weirder…
“The fear is that it would become difficult to separate such ‘science’
from New Age thinking, or science fiction” (G. Ellis)
“[Falsifiability is] just a simple motto that non-philosophically-trained
scientists have latched onto” (S. Carroll)
“Post-empirical science is an oxymoron” (S. Hossenfelder)
“The belief that the universe beyond our causal horizon is
homogeneous is just as speculative and just as susceptible to the
Popperazzi” (L. Susskind)

“Falsifiability shouldn’t be ‘retired.’ Instead, falsifiability’s portfolio
should be expanded, with full-time assistants (like explanatory power)
hired to lighten falsifiability’s load.” (S. Aaronson)
“My real problem with the falsifiability police is: we don’t get to
demand ahead of time what kind of theory correctly describes the
world” (S. Carroll)
“This is a debate about the nature of physical knowledge” (P. Galison)
“We undermine the public’s trust in science” (G. Ellis)

what this talk is NOT about:

ut it IS about this:
“… and philosophy!”

so, let us start with Popper, Popperianism and the Popperazzi…

to begin with, let’s get rid of a common myth about falsificationism,
that it is about mere logical falsifiability
Popper did NOT say that logical falsifiability is what separates
science from pseudoscience, because a falsifiable hypothesis can be
“rescued” by ad hoc hypotheses or assumptions
indeed, these assumptions can be construed as to make a theory
logically falsifiable, and yet immune from actual falsification

“Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still
upheld by their admirers–for example by introducing ad hoc some
auxiliary assumption, or by re-interpreting the theory ad hoc in such a
way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible,
but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of
destroying, or at least lowering its scientific status”

here is a typical Popperian contrast:
“Einstein’s theory of gravitation clearly satisfied the criterion of
falsifiability. Even if our measuring instruments at the time did not
allow us to pronounce on the results of the tests with complete
assurance, there was clearly a possibility of refuting the theory”

“Astrology did not pass the test. Astrologers were greatly
impressed, and misled, by what they believed to be confirming
evidence–so much so that they were quite unimpressed by any
unfavourable evidence. Moreover, by making their interpretations
and prophecies sufficiently vague they were able to explain away
anything that might have been a refutation of the theory had the
theory and the prophecies been more precise. In order to escape
falsification they destroyed the testability of their theory. It is a
typical soothsayer’s trick to predict things so vaguely that the
predictions can hardly fail: that they become irrefutable“

here is the crucial bit about the “falsifiability” of string theory,
or the multiverse, or whatever else:
“Observations or experiments can be accepted as supporting a
theory (or a hypothesis, or a scientific assertion) only if these
observations or experiments are severe tests of the theory—or in
other words, only if they result from serious attempts to refute the
theory, and especially from trying to find faults where these might
be expected in the light of all our knowledge”
which means that, for Popper at the least, “post-diction” (i.e.,
“predicting” things we already know) doesn’t really count

now that we got Popper straight(er), let’s keep in mind that
philosophy of science makes progress too…
early
‘60s
mid
‘70s
‘80s ‘90s
circa
now

now, physics isn’t the only science where this sort of thing happens…

(full disclaimer: in that debate, I’m no neutral observer)

As David Gross said this morning,
in biology too there are differences
between theories and frameworks
the Modern and Extended Syntheses, or even the
original Darwinian “theory” are really frameworks,
they cannot be (directly, at the least) tested
but specific theories derived from within these
frameworks (e.g., population genetics theory)
can and are regularly tested by observation and experiment
as in physics, there are models too, like those
describing environment-dependent heterozygote advantage
in population genetics

I think these sorts of frameworks are what Kuhn used
to call “paradigms”
Warning: there have been a number of paradigm shifts
in the history of physics
(Though not, according to yours truly, in evolutionary biology)

Modern Synthesis
(the “Standard Model”)
Extended Synthesis
We do not think that these processes
deserve such special attention as to merit a
new name such as ‘extended evolutionary
synthesis’
Like [with] all ideas … they need to prove
their value in the marketplace of rigorous
theory, empirical results and critical
discussion
Advocacy can take an idea only so far …
What Laland and colleagues term the
standard evolutionary theory is a caricature
that views the field as static and monolithic
We invite Laland and colleagues to join us in
a more expansive extension, rather than
imagining divisions that do not exist
An alternative vision of evolution is
beginning to crystallize … We believe that
the EES will shed new light on how
evolution works
The number of biologists calling for change
in how evolution is conceptualized is
growing rapidly
Yet the mere mention of the EES often
evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction
among evolutionary biologists
This is no storm in an academic tearoom, it is
a struggle for the very soul of the discipline

the MS vs ES debate also spilled into the public arena, newspapers,
magazines, the blogosphere, and social networks

egardless of what one thinks of Lee Smolin’s contributions
to the string wars, he’s got one thing right:

“Today, natural philosophy has not disappeared completely. It
lives under disguise. Scientists write popular books, for the
general educated public, professing to make their ideas about
the science that they practice accessible to non-scientists. They
use these books to speculate about the larger meaning of their
discoveries for our understanding of the universe and of our
place within it. They also have another audience, however: their
colleagues in science, addressed under the disguise of
popularization.” (p. 82)

and examples are not difficult to find…

which brings me to the other (major) reason why this matters,
outside of our specific fields of scholarship:

from the article in question:
“The problem really isn’t attacks from outside. Quit fooling
yourselves. The problem is entirely within. If physicists want to join
the many and various advocates of self-expression who do not
depend on rigorous examination of evidence to validate their
assertions, that is a choice physicists make …
Physics becomes just another player in a culture war, with no more
genuinely respectable claims for attention than the demands we
hear daily from grievance warriors that their version of events be
accepted without cavil as Truth …
Just remember, no one did that to you. You did it to yourselves”

which is related to:
Washington Post, 30 Jan 2015

for instance:
“controversy" scientific community general US public
child vaccination is safe 86% 68%
climate change is real and
anthropogenically caused
87% 50%
evolution occurs and is a
natural phenomenon
98% 65%

this is serious, because science has already been under
sustained attack recently, and the battle was bruising:

A Munich declaration?
This is a serious debate among professionals in the field, so it
won’t do to dismiss or ridicule others’ positions
The debate is, in part, on the nature of scientific theorizing and
the relationship between theory & evidence, so it has a
philosophical component
Because the scientific issues are not settled, there is an
inevitable socio-political dimension to the debate, with funding
and hiring decisions at stake, it won’t do to pretend it’s not there
Since it is a very public debate, participants ought to recognize
that what they say will carry consequences for public
understanding of, and trust in, science