“We are in various ways hitting the limits of what will ever be testable, unless we have misunderstood some essential point about the nature of reality,” – George Ellis, theoretical cosmologist
George Ellis sums up this new dilemma of cutting-edge science; that of tackling untestable theories with their painful lack of evidence. There are new theories which cannot be experimentally verified, but are so compelling they have become main-stream science. On the one hand, they are tarnishing science’s reputation and on the other, are forcing scientists to rethink centuries old assumptions and methodological values. The old, time-tested scientific methods are hitting insurmountable roadblocks now. Going further up on this straight, well-forged path seems impossible.
New roads must be forged, new directions must be explored.
“Science demands evidence as proof”, this narrative has been so entrenched into our collective consciousness it might take years and generations before we can commonly talk of a science which has become post-empirical. Beyond empirical. Science cannot demand evidence as proof anymore, commanders at its frontier will tell you now. At least not in the conventional sense. Ask Sean Carroll and Richard Dawid: eminent theoretical physicist and philosopher. In fact, it is the ‘less sophisticated and philosophically passe’ view of looking at science, they will tell you. Yes, in fact it could be the less informed, the less educated, and maybe the less intelligent who aggressively hang onto this idea still. This idea of ‘evidence’ has begun its journey into retirement.
Image courtesy: The Human: Science’s Irrational Origins (p. 22) – Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals (2002)
At the risk of sounding repetitive, talking about String Theory as this new kind of scientific theory is important. I take the risk to drive home the idea that the methods of doing science are changing, and its parameters are being revised. The elegant String theory has been able to, at least describe, the deepest fundamentals of reality in terms of vibrating strings. It is popular because it is seductive in its mathematical elegance. Most importantly, it has no other alternatives in the contest, except for Loop Quantum Gravity which has gained little traction. String theory gives rise to the mind boggling idea of 10^500 multiple universes, the stuff of science fiction and fantasies. Imagine that.
What is important to note here is that String Theory has absolutely no evidence based, empirical proof. It might not have evidence for a long time, or maybe ever. It just cannot be tested for validity. You cannot enter the eight hyper-dimensions of nature in any physical way, you cannot send messages to variations of yourself in other parallel universes, you cannot detect the strings. You cannot. “We have no empirical confirmation of String Theory at this point and the perspectives for getting empirical confirmation in the foreseeable future are dim”, says Richard Dawid.
You can only theorize, suggest and mathematically predict. Only that.
It is also not a matter of technological up-gradation, about technology to become sophisticated enough for detection. No, be clear about that. “We have now seen all the visible universe (i.e. back to the visual horizon) and we are approaching the limits of what particle colliders it will ever be feasible to build, for economic and technical reasons.” says Kate Becker, a science writer. No more of that.
The era of traditional empiricism is over. In fact, Richard Dawid, a theoretical physicist and philosopher of science, says that some parts of physics are entering an era of post-empirical science.
Post empirical. Where empirical evidence might not be required for soundness and validity. At least not in the expected way.
Karl Popper, one of the most eminent philosophers of science in the twentieth century declared that if a theory cannot be falsified, it is not a viable scientific theory. Meaning, if it cannot be proved wrong by observation that doesn’t match its predictions, it is not scientific. According to him a theory’s falsifiability is the touchstone for its soundness.
What do you do with String Theory then where there is no way to even confirm it? To this Sean Carroll replies, “Falsifiability is just a simple motto that non-philosophically trained scientists have latched onto.”
He means to say traditional falsifiability is passe; it needs to evolve. Its definition needs to expand.
Ideas are changing. They will have to.
Carroll declares that a good scientific theory must be definite and empirical alone. It must say something clear and unambiguous about how reality functions.
Ok. All right that, we will remember that as we proceed.
If science is leaning towards post-empiricism, should it, can it also not become neo-empirical? New modes of knowing , new methods of experimenting, new categories for evidence?
Why not?
With the recent emergence of a new kind of science and the possibility of a new kind of empiricism, what qualities will the new kind of scientific theory have? The notion of a theory is imperative to the understanding of empirical science, and we must look at its well-established, traditional framework before talking of change.
In his paper, ‘Nature and structure of scientific theories’, C. U. Moulines clearly outlines the nature and the structure of an empirical scientific theory like this:
a) Any theory is built on first principles, a basic set of assumptions. All other concepts of the theory can be defined through these basic axioms as they are also called.
b) It should have an underlying ideology, metaphysical motivations and assumptions.
c) It should have a goal.
d) It should have its methodological and ethical values.
e) It must have instruments for observation and clearly outlined methods of observation.
f) It must have technological applicability.
Also, keeping in mind the changing face of empirical science, what would the features of a legitimate, sound scientific theory be?
a) It should to be democratic in comprehensibility. Anyone who studies it should be able to understand it.
b) It must be a deep theory, arrived at by deduction, a posteriori. It cannot really be a working theory arrived at by heuristics and arbitrary logical reasoning.
c) It should be predictive. A theory is useless if it is not predictive.
d) Can be applied in a wide range of circumstances. It should apply to complex real-life settings as well as to tightly controlled research contexts.
e) It should be parsimonious, i.e. it must have as few elements as possible.
f) It should infer causal relationships between phenomena being investigated.
g) It should have minimal arbitrary or adjustable elements.
h) Explains all existing observations.
i) Universality
j) Consistency
k) Repeatability
If scientific theories are now becoming post-empirical, the scope of experimentation and testing can be different. There can be newer modes of conducting experiments, gathering and verifying evidence.
Sean Carroll, one of the wittiest and smartest scientists and a personal favourite, constantly harps on, “Science is all about building models”.
So here it is. A model, a theory for life. For human existence.