4 ms·

I think you over-simplify the point a bit:purely intellectual considerations are still useful, be it Occam’s razor or a bias towards simplicity. I think I agree

I think you over-simplify the point a bit:purely intellectual considerations are still useful, be it Occam’s razor or a bias towards simplicity. I think I agree with the author in that non-empirical factors are useless for verification. You’d think that this should be obvious, but apparently not (this article is part of some continuous intellectual guerilla warfare around string theory*). OTOH, they are still useful when building or adjusting a theory. This is really obvious when reading Einstein: relativity was verified a posteriori, but before then there were other aspects that made it seem right (simplicity, elegance, the ability to combine several apparently incompatible theories, etc). It certainly was not verified in 1905, when the paper on special relativity was published. To take your example, arguing is fine, but the whole angel discussion should be proven empirically to be of any use. When we realise that it could not be proven, then it stops being science. * with the author Carlo Rovelli arguing against string theory, being one of the authors of the quantum loop gravitation theory which also aims at unifying quantum mechanics and gravitation. He is a great scientific vulgarisation writer as well.

zosima 4y ago
One detail: When the special theory of relativity was published the problem of the aether, or rather that the speed of light was the same in all directions, was very well-known. This problem was very much based on empirical evidence. Special relativity provided a mathematical framework within which that could be true, and included some further testable hypotheses, which were then still unproven. (Time slowing down for fast travellers etc.) But I think it's fair to say that special relativity was developed due to empirical necessity.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  I agree that special relativity was born out of a empirical question. However, that a theory explains a certain known phenomenon does not really increase how trustworthy it is. It is trivial to construct a theory that explains a certain phenomenon, the it is slightly less trivial (that's a bit of an understatement) to construct one which does not contradict any other known phenomena. However to empirically "confirm" a theory requires that the theory predicts a phenomenon which has not been observed and is empirically observed.
- kergonath 4y ago
  I definitely agree. But we cannot really use (only) already-known facts to validate a theory. A theory built around such a fact will explain it by design and won’t have as much explanatory power as if the fact were verified after the theory is established. Of course if a theory cannot explain an already-known empirical fact, then it’d better provide a good explanation, like a different domain of validity. Because of this, I would not consider relativity to have been validated until things like the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment. Even if it could already reconcile the principle of relativity and a constant speed of light, which was a significant intellectual achievement. Explaining the Michelson-Morley experiment was great, even a posteriori.

zosima 4y ago

One detail: When the special theory of relativity was published the problem of the aether, or rather that the speed of light was the same in all directions, was very well-known. This problem was very much based on empirical evidence. Special relativity provided a mathematical framework within which that could be true, and included some further testable hypotheses, which were then still unproven. (Time slowing down for fast travellers etc.) But I think it's fair to say that special relativity was developed due to empirical necessity.

cycomanic 4y ago
I agree that special relativity was born out of a empirical question. However, that a theory explains a certain known phenomenon does not really increase how trustworthy it is. It is trivial to construct a theory that explains a certain phenomenon, the it is slightly less trivial (that's a bit of an understatement) to construct one which does not contradict any other known phenomena. However to empirically "confirm" a theory requires that the theory predicts a phenomenon which has not been observed and is empirically observed.
kergonath 4y ago
I definitely agree. But we cannot really use (only) already-known facts to validate a theory. A theory built around such a fact will explain it by design and won’t have as much explanatory power as if the fact were verified after the theory is established. Of course if a theory cannot explain an already-known empirical fact, then it’d better provide a good explanation, like a different domain of validity. Because of this, I would not consider relativity to have been validated until things like the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment. Even if it could already reconcile the principle of relativity and a constant speed of light, which was a significant intellectual achievement. Explaining the Michelson-Morley experiment was great, even a posteriori.