Second, I actually know most of these people, obviously some better than others. So, who knows, some of them may even read the following with some interest. Refreshingly, almost all of them have respect for philosophy of science, unlike ignorant (of philosophy) physicists like Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking.
Let me begin with two caveats: first, there are many people involved in the controversy, including Sean Carroll, Peter Woit, Sabine Hossenfelder, George Ellis, and Joe Silk (not to mention astute commentators such as Lee Smolin and Jim Baggott). But they keep bringing in Karl Popper and his ideas on the nature of science, as well as invoke - or criticize - Richard Dawid’s concept of non-empirical theory confirmation, so I feel a bit of a modest commentary as a philosopher of science is not entirely out of order. I take it that the protagonists of this diatribe are more than competent enough to know what they are talking about. I am no physicist, not even a philosopher of physics, in fact ( my specialty is evolutionary biology), so I will not comment on the science itself. The string and multiverse wars are going strong in fundamental physics! And philosophy of science is very much at the center of the storm. Peter Woit (left) vs Sean Carroll (right)
0 kommentar(er)
