- #36
MacRudi
- 98
- 12
I look forward to hear this:
Peter Achinstein: Scientific Speculation
Throughout the history of science controversies have emerged regarding the legitimacy of speculating in science. Three very strong views about the general practice of speculating have emerged: One, very conservative, says “never do it, or at least never publish it.” It is the official doctrine of Isaac Newton: “hypotheses have no place in experimental philosophy.” (Of course, he violated his official doctrine on several occasions). Another, more moderate position is the official doctrine of hypothetico-deductivists such as Whewell, Popper, and Hempel: speculate freely but verify before publishing. The third, the most liberal, is suggested by Feyerabend’s principle of proliferation: speculate like mad, and publish, even when you have no idea how to test your speculations.
In my talk I want to reject all three of these views. They are too simple-minded. Some speculations are good ones, some not so good. I will ask how a speculation is to be evaluated. In the process of doing so, I will consider two historically important speculations: James Clerk Maxwell’s kinetic theory speculations from 1860 to 1875, and a speculation that has been put forward by some string theorists, as well as by others, viz. that there is a “theory of everything” (whether or not it is string theory). The first, I will argue, deserves praise, the second does not.
Sabine Hossenfelder: Lost in Math
I will speak about the role of social and cognitive biases in hypotheses pre-selection, and reflect on the rationale behind the concepts of naturalness, simplicity and beauty.
Helge Kragh: Fundamental Theories and Epistemic Shifts: Can History of Science serve as a Guide?
Epistemic standards and methodologies of science inevitably reflect the successes and failures of the past. In this sense, they are in part of a historical nature. Moreover, the commonly accepted methodological criteria have to some extent changed over time. Faced with the problem of theories that cannot be tested empirically, perhaps not even in principle, it may be useful to look back in time to situations of a somewhat similar kind. Roughly speaking, previous suggestions of non-empirical testing have not fared well through the long history of science. Ambitious and fundamental theories of this kind have generally been failures, some of them grander than others. So, is there any reason to believe that they will not remain so in the future? Can we infer from history that empirical testability is a sine qua non for what we know as science? Not quite, for it is far from obvious that older scientific theories can be meaningfully compared to modern string theory or multiverse physics. History of science is at best an ambiguous guide to present and future problems, yet it does provide reasons for scepticism with regard to current suggestions of drastic epistemic shifts which essentially amounts to a new “definition” of science.
Peter Achinstein: Scientific Speculation
Throughout the history of science controversies have emerged regarding the legitimacy of speculating in science. Three very strong views about the general practice of speculating have emerged: One, very conservative, says “never do it, or at least never publish it.” It is the official doctrine of Isaac Newton: “hypotheses have no place in experimental philosophy.” (Of course, he violated his official doctrine on several occasions). Another, more moderate position is the official doctrine of hypothetico-deductivists such as Whewell, Popper, and Hempel: speculate freely but verify before publishing. The third, the most liberal, is suggested by Feyerabend’s principle of proliferation: speculate like mad, and publish, even when you have no idea how to test your speculations.
In my talk I want to reject all three of these views. They are too simple-minded. Some speculations are good ones, some not so good. I will ask how a speculation is to be evaluated. In the process of doing so, I will consider two historically important speculations: James Clerk Maxwell’s kinetic theory speculations from 1860 to 1875, and a speculation that has been put forward by some string theorists, as well as by others, viz. that there is a “theory of everything” (whether or not it is string theory). The first, I will argue, deserves praise, the second does not.
Sabine Hossenfelder: Lost in Math
I will speak about the role of social and cognitive biases in hypotheses pre-selection, and reflect on the rationale behind the concepts of naturalness, simplicity and beauty.
Helge Kragh: Fundamental Theories and Epistemic Shifts: Can History of Science serve as a Guide?
Epistemic standards and methodologies of science inevitably reflect the successes and failures of the past. In this sense, they are in part of a historical nature. Moreover, the commonly accepted methodological criteria have to some extent changed over time. Faced with the problem of theories that cannot be tested empirically, perhaps not even in principle, it may be useful to look back in time to situations of a somewhat similar kind. Roughly speaking, previous suggestions of non-empirical testing have not fared well through the long history of science. Ambitious and fundamental theories of this kind have generally been failures, some of them grander than others. So, is there any reason to believe that they will not remain so in the future? Can we infer from history that empirical testability is a sine qua non for what we know as science? Not quite, for it is far from obvious that older scientific theories can be meaningfully compared to modern string theory or multiverse physics. History of science is at best an ambiguous guide to present and future problems, yet it does provide reasons for scepticism with regard to current suggestions of drastic epistemic shifts which essentially amounts to a new “definition” of science.
