Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics George Ellis& Joe Silk 16 December 2014 Excerpt This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. Experiments have proved many beautiful and simple theories wrong, from the steady-state theory of cosmology to the SU Grand Unified Theory of particle physics, which aimed to unify the electroweak force and the strong force. Theories such as quantum mechanics and relativity turned out well because they made predictions that survived testing. Yet numerous historical examples point to how, in the absence of adequate data, elegant and compelling ideas led researchers in the wrong direction, from Ptolemys geocentric theories of the cosmos to Lord Kelvins vortex theory of the atom and Fred Hoyles perpetual steady-state Universe. To state that a theory is so good that its existence supplants the need for data and testing in our opinion risks misleading students and the public as to how science should be done and could open the door for pseudoscientists to claim that their ideas meet similar requirements. What to do about it? In our view, the issue boils down to clarifying one question: what potential observational or experimental evidence is there that would persuade you that the theory is wrong and lead you to abandoning it? If there is none, it is not a scientific theory. The imprimatur of science should be awarded only to a theory that is testable. Only then can we defend science from attack. Complete article at nature/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535
Posted on: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 21:20:03 +0000