String theory, non-empirical theory assessment, and the context of pursuit.
In this paper, I offer an analysis of the radical disagreement over the adequacy of string theory. The prominence of string theory despite its notorious lack of empirical support is sometimes explained as a troubling case of science gone awry, driven largely by sociological mechanisms such as groupt...
| Publicado en: | Synthese Vol. 198; pp. 3671 - 3700 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Jul2021 Supplement 16
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=151400847&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 151400847 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00397857 4LI jtl: Synthese issn: 00397857 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Jul2021 Supplement 16 vid: 198 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 151400847 10.1007/s11229-018-01987-9 ppf: 3671 ppct: 29 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 622KB tig: atl: String theory, non-empirical theory assessment, and the context of pursuit. aug: au: Cabrera, Frank affil: Department of Philosophy, Kansas State University, 1116 Mid Campus Dr North, 201 Dickens Hall, 66506-0803, Manhattan, KS, USA su: String theory Cambridge University Press Scientific method Boston (Mass.) sug: subj: Boston (Mass.) String theory Cambridge University Press Scientific method keyword: Bayesianism Context of justification Context of pursuit Explanation ab: In this paper, I offer an analysis of the radical disagreement over the adequacy of string theory. The prominence of string theory despite its notorious lack of empirical support is sometimes explained as a troubling case of science gone awry, driven largely by sociological mechanisms such as groupthink (e.g. Smolin in The trouble with physics, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 2006). Others, such as Dawid (String theory and the scientific method, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013), explain the controversy by positing a methodological revolution of sorts, according to which string theorists have quietly turned to non-empirical methods of theory assessment given the technological inability to directly test the theory. The appropriate response, according to Dawid, is to acknowledge this development and widen the canons of acceptable scientific methods. As I'll argue, however, the current situation in fundamental physics does not require either of these responses. Rather, as I'll suggest, much of the controversy stems from a failure to properly distinguish the "context of justification" from the "context of pursuit". Both those who accuse string theorists of betraying the scientific method and those who advocate an enlarged conception of scientific methodology objectionably conflate epistemic justification with judgements of pursuit-worthiness. Once we get clear about this distinction and about the different norms governing the two contexts, the current situation in fundamental physics becomes much less puzzling. After defending this diagnosis of the controversy, I'll show how the argument patterns that have been posited by Dawid as constituting an emergent methodological revolution in science are better off if reworked as arguments belonging to the context of pursuit. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Synthese is a copyright of Springer, 2021. All Rights Reserved. item: Synthese holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2021 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|