I believe physicists would benefit from studying at least some of the underlying philosophy. I managed to make it through a four year degree in physics without ever being taught anything about the ideas of Popper or Kuhn other than vague mentions in random lectures. It was only later when I looked into them out of my own interest that I realised they had something relevant to say - and I reckon many physicists never get to that point at all.
I’m not an expert in physics, but this seems like a misguided critique to me. My understanding is that physicists aren’t looking for “new” physics because they’re trying to upend established physics, but because they’re trying to reconcile “inconsistencies” in the standard model. Like reconciling quantum physics with general relativity. We need new physics because we know there are gaps in our current understanding of the universe. I haven’t heard about many attempts to disprove established physics. Theoretical physicists aren’t looking just trying to fill the gaps in the model.
> I haven’t heard about many attempts to disprove established physics.
Every experiment that tests the standard model is an attempt to disprove established physics. There is no great expectation these attempts will succeed, but it only takes on ugly experiment to kill a beautiful theory.
People frequently misunderstand what motivates physicists. They aren't tiptoeing around orthodox theory like it's a precious house of cards that they're desperately afraid will fall apart. At every opportunity, they take sledgehammers to it. It's every physicist's dream to invalidate accepted theory. The more fundamental and important it is, the more work it creates for other physicists, the better.
Because it's so hard and rare, physicists are often quite skeptical of claims that cards have been sent tumbling. This skepticism has delayed progress at times.
Did this guy just propose a new theory of epistemological trajectories in theoretical physics, beyond the current paradigm of theoretical physicists liking shiny mathematical objects?
I believe physicists would benefit from studying at least some of the underlying philosophy. I managed to make it through a four year degree in physics without ever being taught anything about the ideas of Popper or Kuhn other than vague mentions in random lectures. It was only later when I looked into them out of my own interest that I realised they had something relevant to say - and I reckon many physicists never get to that point at all.
https://archive.ph/jxnrh
Don’t forget P Feyerabend, Against Method
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method
I’m not an expert in physics, but this seems like a misguided critique to me. My understanding is that physicists aren’t looking for “new” physics because they’re trying to upend established physics, but because they’re trying to reconcile “inconsistencies” in the standard model. Like reconciling quantum physics with general relativity. We need new physics because we know there are gaps in our current understanding of the universe. I haven’t heard about many attempts to disprove established physics. Theoretical physicists aren’t looking just trying to fill the gaps in the model.
> I haven’t heard about many attempts to disprove established physics.
Every experiment that tests the standard model is an attempt to disprove established physics. There is no great expectation these attempts will succeed, but it only takes on ugly experiment to kill a beautiful theory.
People frequently misunderstand what motivates physicists. They aren't tiptoeing around orthodox theory like it's a precious house of cards that they're desperately afraid will fall apart. At every opportunity, they take sledgehammers to it. It's every physicist's dream to invalidate accepted theory. The more fundamental and important it is, the more work it creates for other physicists, the better.
Because it's so hard and rare, physicists are often quite skeptical of claims that cards have been sent tumbling. This skepticism has delayed progress at times.
Did this guy just propose a new theory of epistemological trajectories in theoretical physics, beyond the current paradigm of theoretical physicists liking shiny mathematical objects?
>By Carlo Rovelli
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Rovelli