It's unclear to me what problem you are trying to solve.
Yes, science has its own specialized language which is not amenable to expressing certain aspects of human experience. So what? Music also has its own specialized language (one that is largely opaque to me, not being musical myself). Other domains have their specialized approaches a…
It's unclear to me what problem you are trying to solve.
Yes, science has its own specialized language which is not amenable to expressing certain aspects of human experience. So what? Music also has its own specialized language (one that is largely opaque to me, not being musical myself). Other domains have their specialized approaches and terminology as well.
Yes, there are many questions within the domain of science, such as the motion of spiral galaxies you mentioned, that remain unexplained by science. Again, so what? No rational scientist claims that science is omniscient, and Nature doesn't always reveal her secrets on a schedule that is convenient for us. Sending poets into space is not going to solve the riddles of spiral galaxies and dark matter.
To the extent modern science has problems -- and I agree with you that it does -- I think these come from neglecting the need for difficult, time-consuming experimentation and data analysis, instead taking the easy path of "expert" opinion, computer models that are not empirically validated, and mathematical speculation. The latter is the problem Sabine Hossenfelder addresses in her "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray" book.
Science has other problems as well, such as politicization, the reproducibility crisis, and neglect of Feynman's dictum to be honest about the evidence both for and against one's pet theory. But I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with the language of science or the scientific method.
I totally understand your reservations about my project, and I think your views would be widely shared within the mainstream scientific community. But I do think the problems faced by cosmology go deeper than you (and the mainstream) think. The problem isn't that the motion of spiral galaxies remains unexplained by science; it's that the approach that has failed to work for the past fifty years is likely to continue not working, particularly now that all research in that area uses computer simulations that assume dark matter is the answer, and then force out a semi-plausible-looking universe by adjusting up to ten or a dozen free parameters. You can prove anything with that many free parameters. It's not even science any more, it's CGI.
I completely agree. Thus my disdain for the widespread replacement of experiment by (perhaps overfitted) computer models. IMO, one of the problems with modern physics is the reification of mathematics a la the Pythagoreans rather than the recognition that physics is fundamentally an empirical science. Math should be used as a tool to explain reality, not to replace it.
But I don't think you can extrapolate from problems with cosmology, string theory, and perhaps other disciplines that have stagnated lately to all of science. Biology in particular is thriving -- at least if you steer clear of the politically contentious branches. When young people interested in science ask me whether they should pursue physics, chemistry, or biology, I always say biology, because that's where the excitement is and where progress is being made. (Alas, I am not a biologist myself, so I'm not just talking my book here.)
Again, I'm not clear on the scope of the problem you are trying to solve. If the issue is simply that cosmology calls for new approaches, that seems like a worthy endeavor. Compared to other branches of physics, cosmology is challenging because neither controlled experimentation nor close inspection of the phenomena are possible.
In light of these difficulties, perhaps what is needed is a recognition that cosmology is currently a scientifically immature field like psychology. In both fields there is a huge amount of interesting data and some degree of phenomenology to "explain" many observations. But there is no unified theory of the mind in one case or the universe in the other that ties the data together in a consistent way. Maybe cosmologists need to get comfortable with saying, "We don't know. We don't know when we will know. But in the meantime we'll keep gathering data and trying to come up with ideas." Or maybe you will help crack the problem.
I agree in part DH. But as one with a science degree, I see the world of “follow the science “ as an arrogant, demanding, relationship destroying ideology. Science must be put in check as suggested here because it is becoming a “god” and rule the world with its dictatorial mandates and language. Which will increase with the use of AI which uses this language exclusively and is given more rule over us with the promise of convenience.
I think one must distinguish between two different phenomena, one healthy, the other pathological but unfortunately growing:
Science: the practice of the scientific method to reveal the laws of nature, which includes rational debate and acknowledgment of uncertainty.
Scientism: the treatment of the theories and proclamations of designated scientific authorities as dogma to be accepted on faith without question, the stifling of rational debate, and refusal to acknowledge uncertainty or credible alternative hypotheses.
It's unclear to me what problem you are trying to solve.
Yes, science has its own specialized language which is not amenable to expressing certain aspects of human experience. So what? Music also has its own specialized language (one that is largely opaque to me, not being musical myself). Other domains have their specialized approaches and terminology as well.
Yes, there are many questions within the domain of science, such as the motion of spiral galaxies you mentioned, that remain unexplained by science. Again, so what? No rational scientist claims that science is omniscient, and Nature doesn't always reveal her secrets on a schedule that is convenient for us. Sending poets into space is not going to solve the riddles of spiral galaxies and dark matter.
To the extent modern science has problems -- and I agree with you that it does -- I think these come from neglecting the need for difficult, time-consuming experimentation and data analysis, instead taking the easy path of "expert" opinion, computer models that are not empirically validated, and mathematical speculation. The latter is the problem Sabine Hossenfelder addresses in her "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray" book.
Science has other problems as well, such as politicization, the reproducibility crisis, and neglect of Feynman's dictum to be honest about the evidence both for and against one's pet theory. But I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with the language of science or the scientific method.
I totally understand your reservations about my project, and I think your views would be widely shared within the mainstream scientific community. But I do think the problems faced by cosmology go deeper than you (and the mainstream) think. The problem isn't that the motion of spiral galaxies remains unexplained by science; it's that the approach that has failed to work for the past fifty years is likely to continue not working, particularly now that all research in that area uses computer simulations that assume dark matter is the answer, and then force out a semi-plausible-looking universe by adjusting up to ten or a dozen free parameters. You can prove anything with that many free parameters. It's not even science any more, it's CGI.
I completely agree. Thus my disdain for the widespread replacement of experiment by (perhaps overfitted) computer models. IMO, one of the problems with modern physics is the reification of mathematics a la the Pythagoreans rather than the recognition that physics is fundamentally an empirical science. Math should be used as a tool to explain reality, not to replace it.
But I don't think you can extrapolate from problems with cosmology, string theory, and perhaps other disciplines that have stagnated lately to all of science. Biology in particular is thriving -- at least if you steer clear of the politically contentious branches. When young people interested in science ask me whether they should pursue physics, chemistry, or biology, I always say biology, because that's where the excitement is and where progress is being made. (Alas, I am not a biologist myself, so I'm not just talking my book here.)
Again, I'm not clear on the scope of the problem you are trying to solve. If the issue is simply that cosmology calls for new approaches, that seems like a worthy endeavor. Compared to other branches of physics, cosmology is challenging because neither controlled experimentation nor close inspection of the phenomena are possible.
In light of these difficulties, perhaps what is needed is a recognition that cosmology is currently a scientifically immature field like psychology. In both fields there is a huge amount of interesting data and some degree of phenomenology to "explain" many observations. But there is no unified theory of the mind in one case or the universe in the other that ties the data together in a consistent way. Maybe cosmologists need to get comfortable with saying, "We don't know. We don't know when we will know. But in the meantime we'll keep gathering data and trying to come up with ideas." Or maybe you will help crack the problem.
I agree in part DH. But as one with a science degree, I see the world of “follow the science “ as an arrogant, demanding, relationship destroying ideology. Science must be put in check as suggested here because it is becoming a “god” and rule the world with its dictatorial mandates and language. Which will increase with the use of AI which uses this language exclusively and is given more rule over us with the promise of convenience.
I think one must distinguish between two different phenomena, one healthy, the other pathological but unfortunately growing:
Science: the practice of the scientific method to reveal the laws of nature, which includes rational debate and acknowledgment of uncertainty.
Scientism: the treatment of the theories and proclamations of designated scientific authorities as dogma to be accepted on faith without question, the stifling of rational debate, and refusal to acknowledge uncertainty or credible alternative hypotheses.
On this we fully agree.
I agree DH. We must separate science from religion, politics, and all and all answers to the universe. I appreciate your input.