15. Peter Woit Says:
November 14th, 2005 at 5:50 pm

A couple comments more directly about what Lawrence had to say, my earlier comment was somewhat tangential.

1. I’ve been thinking a bit about his question about string theory: “Is it worth talking about to the general public?” As far as my own blogging goes, this doesn’t really come up since my concept there is to write assuming I’m talking to professional colleagues, although with the hope that interested members of the public will sometimes tune in and get something out of it, even if they find much of it mystifying. The people here at Cosmic Variance are trying to directly engage the public, which is great, but it seems to me they do need to seriously think about Lawrence’s question.

I know some string theorists disagree, but I think an accurate characterization of particle theory these days is that it is a victim of its own success, with no promising ideas about how to get beyond the all too successful standard model. Absent the usual pattern of important new clues coming from experiment keeping theorists honest and on the right track, a certain degree of dysfunctional behavior has emerged in the way particle theory is being pursued. Do you really want to invite the public in to see this? As an analogy: if your kitchen is a complete mess and family members are having a loud, ugly argument about what to do about it, do you really want to invite the neighbors in to show them around? One possible tactic is to keep the kitchen door closed, show off the incredibly beautiful and elegant front rooms (e.g. the standard model), and tell people that you’re working on the kitchen, things aren’t going that well, so it’s in no shape for public viewing. Another is to throw the doors open, invite them in to see the mess and hear all the arguing, hoping that they’ll appreciate your family’s openness and straight-forwardness.

I can see arguments for either of these tactics, but I think the tactic that many have actually adopted is a third and indefensible one: to keep people out of the kitchen while claiming everything is going just great in there, showing off drawings of what you wish your kitchen looked like, and giving the misleading impression that you’re making progress toward getting the kitchen to look like the drawings. The problem with this is that sooner or later your neighbors are going to find out what has been going on, and you will have lost all credibility with them.

2. While I agree with just about everything Lawrence has to say, I have a different perspective on the point he makes here and elsewhere that saying a theory must be true because it is beautiful is not distinguishable from religion. Of course this is true: he’s right that what finally makes something a tested scientific theory is to confront it with experiment. But at an earlier, more exploratory stage when you can’t yet do that, picking one idea over another because it is more beautiful is actually a very rational, scientific way to proceed. Occam’s razor is important, and one should be looking for simple, elegant, beautiful ideas in preference to complicated, ugly ones, unless experimental evidence makes the ugly ones unavoidable. The problem with string theory is that it is no longer a beautiful idea about how to unify the standard model and gravity. All constructions that even partially reproduce the standard model are hideously ugly, with no experimental evidence to back them up. What is happening these days is that an increasingly large number of string theorists, in desperate attempts to get the standard model, have ended up working with increasingly hideous constructions.

… “the context in which I referred to ID was actually to make a point that I am beginning to think is actually relevant… namely that when physicists refer to ‘string theory’ it is in the context of ‘field theory’… namely as a technical replacement of one physical and mathematical framework for dealing with relativistic quantum mechanics with another.. but unfortunately in the context in which we complain about IDers saying Evolution is ‘just a theory’, the popular use of the term string theory is unfortunate.. because ‘string theory’ is not a theory in the context in which we claim evolution or general relativity is… i.e. something that has been tested time and again against experiment and observation.. calling it the string hypothesis would not be inappropriate in this sense..”

That makes me believe that transparency and openness between the scientific community and the general public is a good idea.