Comments on: Natalie Jeremijenko Fan Club

by: What if string theory is wrong? at Freedom of Science

Wed, 07 May 2008 00:01:35 +0000

[…] Not Even Wrong points to a paper by the string theorist Moataz Emam that asks the question So what will you do if string theory is wrong? As an answer he suggests that physics may divest itself from string theory and create a new academic department equidistant from physics and mathematics. I believe that my proposal put forth in this comment quoted below, is even better for all parties concerned: Divide physics into physics and fine physics. Maybe something that I wrote in an earlier post can be useful here. I propose to divide physics into two distinct academic divisions: physics and fine physics. In fine physics, as in fine art, there will not be a requirement to conform to a standard of evidence. Already string theorists use fine art concepts such as elegance and beauty as fundamental concepts of string theory. […]

by: Fine Physics at Freedom of Science

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:03:29 +0000

[…] Read the rest here. I believe that experimental physicists, even astronomers who see their field corrupted by string theorists, ought to support this separation. [↩]Natalie Jeremijenko fun club. Crooked timber of scholasticism. Good physics v. fine physics. Standard of evidence. [↩]Although calling someone like Lubos Motl “fine” in any context would be a bit too much even for people who would approve of this separation. [↩] […]

by: Pioneer1

Tue, 08 May 2007 02:40:15 +0000

I understand that all good science is art. Thanks for saying this.

But I am not sure now I understand what is meant by “standard of evidence.” Reading my previous comment, I agree with you that standard of evidence is not quantifiable. The reason, I believe, is that standard of evidence is a definition. It is not a quantity we measure, it is the unit against which we measure other quantities.

In this sense, without losing the art part of data analysis, there may still be standards for the profession. I have in mind for instance a definition of experiment. What is an experiment? I believe there is no such definition in physics. Is duplication a requirement of physics experiments? Is it required that experimenters publish all data? Or if, as you say, they don’t have to, is this a professional standard?

I think you are also talking about the evidence in the data. I have not been thinking in that sense.

I appreciate your comments. Thank you.

by: Charlie Marcus

Sun, 06 May 2007 05:11:31 +0000

I don’t think standards of evidence are quantifiable. Experimentalists don’t publish everything they measure, because some of it seems — I emphasize: “seems” — to our eye not to be right, or fishy, or not repeatable enough, or not the right story somehow. The process of extracting evidence from massive data sets is an art, like all good science.

by: Institute for Simplification of Physics at Freedom of Science

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:21:15 +0000

[…] In his comment to my post “Natalie Jeremijenko Fan Club” Charlie Marcus of Harvard University disagreed that “the standard of evidence in academic physics is zero.” […]

by: Standard of Evidence at Freedom of Science

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:39:48 +0000

[…] Here there must be a caveat. Regarding the comment http://globalpioneering.com/wp02/natalie-jeremijenko-fan-club/ of Charlie Marcus about academic physics we must not generalize the methods used by academic theoretical physicists to applied physicists working in the academia. Academic physics includes not only theoretical physics, but also, applied physics. Maybe the analysis here should be confined to academic theoretical physics. But, I believe that the problem is endemic in the entire physics. More discussion is needed here. Comments would be welcome. […]

by: Pioneer1

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 17:44:04 +0000

Thank you for your comment. I read my post again. I think you are right. It is unjustified to generalize Lisa Randall’s work to the entire academic physics. But Lisa Randall and string theorists are presenting their work as the hard science of physics practiced in the academia. This is confusing for the general public. I apologize for bundling a criticism of Lisa Randall with the entire academic physics. I would appreciate more comments on this.

Maybe something that I wrote in an earlier post can be useful here. I proposed to divide physics into two distinct academic divisions: physics and fine physics. In fine physics, as in fine art, there will not be a requirement to conform to a standard of evidence. Already string theorists use fine art concepts such as elegance and beauty as fundamental concepts of string theory.

Also, just like art, string theory can only be defined by way of its practitioners: String theory is what string theorists do. There is no independent definition of string theory and this is how string theorists like it. (By the way, thanks for the link that you included. There are similar discussions there about art and science which are very interesting to me.)

I believe that the kind of physics done in technology labs and in industry is fundamentally different than the kind of physics done by string theorists. If fine physics is officially independent of applied physics most of the confusion in public mind will disappear. This way dreamers will dream in their own department unburdened by any standard of evidence. This would be good for both parties.

Consequently, now I understand that standard of evidence in academic physics is not zero. How do we measure standard of evidence? Do you have any numbers in mind? I will post some more on this topic.

Thanks again for your comments.

by: Charlie Marcus

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:28:25 +0000

As a long-time friend of Natalie, and colleague and friend of Lisa as well, I read your blog with interest. I agree with your admiration of Natalie and her work; I’m also a fan. But I don’t agree that the standard of evidence in academic physics is zero. Some of us even do experiments! I think your brush is too wide here. I have no idea if string theory is right or wrong, or it’s its redefining physics, but we are not all string theorists, and we shouldn’t be too impatient or practical about what we ask of academics. String theorists prove (at least) that academia still supports dreamers, and not just people who make better mousetraps (like me). The dreamers of the world should be happy about that. Just ask Joe Davis (http://www.viewingspace.com/genetics_culture/pages_genetics_culture/gc_w01/gc_w01.htm) who gave the Harvard Physics Colloquium a few years back.

by: at Freedom of Science

Sat, 06 Jan 2007 21:59:31 +0000

[…] I notice that in physics there is no standard of evidence (I took this phrase from Natalie Jeremijenko, another artist! Is this a coincidence that artists are more scientific than physicists? I don’t think so. Artists are free, physicists are not.) In physics there is no definition of what an experiment is. I am saying that this standard of evidence needs to be established. There is only one way to establish this standard and it is to take legal action against institutions that perpetuate scholastacism under the name of physics. Everyone sees that there is something wrong with physics. How to fix it? My remedy is to regulate the physics industry. By this I understand the transfer of the scientific authority to an independent entity. Why? This will remove the authority of practitioners from physics. This is the most fundamental requirement of science. If each and every physicist is free to define what an experiment is, as is the case today, physics cannot be science. If every cosmologist is free to define what universe is cosmology has not reached a scientific stage yet. Only in prescientific state the practitioners have absolute authority to define fundamental concepts of the discipline. Remove the authority of the practioners and the present alphysics will become scientific physics (this has already happened in technology). […]