Controversy in High Energy Physics: ‘post-empirical’ science and determining future directions
par
Drawing upon historical, philosophical, and sociological methodologies, this presentation will look at the string theory debates, and will explore what has led several historians and philosophers of science to ask if the widespread belief in string theory constitutes a new post empirical era for science.
The presentation will begin by considering the debates between string theorists and some of its critics, where attempts have been made to draw boundaries around which activities may legitimately be considered as science: especially concerning the lack of testability, the use of anthropic reasoning and multiverse hypotheses. Uniquely amongst examples of boundary work (Gieryn, 1983, 1999), in the case of string theory, an established group was forced to defend a perceived expansion of the definition of science. The presentation will then turn to the contributions of philosophers to these debates; recently, philosophers of science have attempted to reignite the demarcation problem. These attempts have recently been led by philosophers Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry, and sociologists such as Harry Collins and Bruno Latour. In the case of string theory, unlike evolutionary biology (Pigliucci’s concern) or climate change (Latour’s concern); there is no consensus position to fall back on. Philosophers have historically played a normative role in demarcation disputes but without a consensus position, should modern philosophers attempt to characterise string theory normatively?
To end, I will invite speculation as to how to consider the current state of high energy physics following the (thus far) lack of evidence of new physics at the LHC.
Works referenced:
Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781-795.
Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.