I’ve been a fan of Peter Woit out of Columbia University for some time. I know almost nothing about theoretical physics, but his critique of this field is of interest to me. In many ways, he feels a bit Popperian in that he can be disdainful of physics that have no ability to ever be proven. More importantly, I think he brings up issues in science that can be expanded to other regions of knowledge, including theology.
I would recommend his blog, but a good summary of his work can be found on his 2008 ArXiv article titled “String Theory: An Evaluation.”
Basically, Woit points out that string theory is amazing as a mathematical construct, but it may not work at all as a physical theory (actually, he thinks it is a failed theory).
Some quotes from the paper:
“This situation leads one to question whether string theory really is a scientific
theory at all. At the moment it’s a theory that cannot be falsified by any
conceivable experimental result. It’s not even clear that there is any possible
theoretical development that would falsify the theory.“
“String theorists often attempt to make an aesthetic argument, a claim
that the theory is strikingly ‘elegant’ or ‘beautiful’. Since there is no welldefined
theory, it’s hard to know what to make of these claims…”
“Given the lack of experimental or aesthetic motivation, why do so many
particle theorists work on string theory? Sheldon Glashow describes string
theory as ‘the only game in town’, but this begs the question. Why is it the
only game in town?”
“String Theory” from New Scientist
His solutions provided in the paper are quite good, and you should give it a read.
Where am I going with all of this? So much of human knowledge has both a subjective and objective assigned to it. In process philosophy as well as in process theology, one would argue that subjectivity is a vital / essential part of the univere. I would agree. Let’s talk about Woit’s paper in relation to science and religion.
SCIENCE: I cannot speak to theorectical physics, but in my world of academic medicine, we must be Popperian. Taking care of humans will not advance without real research (basic science and clinical) that can not only be duplicated but also have the potential to be disproven. Anti-vaccination propaganda, homeopathy, useless chiropracter techniques will persist unless we are Popperian. I have previously written in my blog about how real academic medicine risks dying on the vine without time for research and teaching in the current setting of institutional incentives for clinical care only combined with a strong anti-science movement in the world (due to poor education) and the influence of pharmaceutical companies. This is an objective truth. A subjective truth contains how a singular physician deals with her individual patients. Cancer is sadly common; the way a patient deals with a diagnosis of cancer or other devastating diseases always is unique.
THEOLOGY: Theology is severly subjective in many ways. Every human that has ever lived has had a unique view of God / No God. We worship in communities in subjective ways. We can be told to worship or believe the “right way” to get to heaven when there is no experiment to determine that a specific method of religion leads to contact with the Divine. However, theology (and theologians) can be a corrective salve. When we, as a profession, use the latest data from science, history, philsophy, and many other important fields, we can help change how the world views God. For example, we now know that we live on a tiny planet in a standard galaxy intermixed with probably 2 trillion galaxies in our KNOWN universe. Ptolemy had no clue here since he put our planet in the center of the universe. This statment is not his fault as he did not have the benefit of modern science. Indeed, our theology has had to change just on that one fact alone and not counting innumerable other scientific discoveries. Here, theology can work in important objective facts into how we view God.
Ptolemy
My conclusions:
- Woit is correct in that it is hard to define some niches of science as “scientific” if there is no objective, experimental component present.
- Many parts of science, like medicine or engineering, need objectivity to be helpful to our species. There may be subjective components, but objectivity is important.
- Religion and thus theology have a strong subjective aspect. However, understanding the reality of the modern world as well as understanding of science as it is unveiled in the future requires an objective component. Our understanding of God will change. Always has. Always will.
- Subjectivity and objectivity equally are important in our understanding of reality. Our goal as humans is to know and to learn when to emphasize one over the other even when both are present.
image created by Meta AI
Phi-The-Sci: Equilateral Musings 