Scan barcode
A review by fractal_rabbit
Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray by Sabine Hossenfelder
informative
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
Sabine Hossenfelder's Lost in Math has the same sense of humor as her YouTube videos and is an enjoyable read. The book follows her travels while she visits various physicists of varying levels of success, asking them their thoughts on the current state of fundamental physics and the aesthetic judgement of theories. She is especially critical of non-empirical theory assessment, like mathematical beauty, which many physicists aspire to follow but none can define. She would likely answer the question, "What makes a good theory," with the simple answer that it explains observation and nothing more.
Sabine makes interesting observations for the state of science today. A successful academic paper has the same recipe as a successful song: We want it to be surprising, but not *too* surprising. We still want the paper, or song, to follow the expected convention most of the time, but without intrigue and something unexpected, we wouldn't pay attention.
She points out the challenges that scientists face today in terms of job security: how there are many temporary research positions while tenured positions continue to dry up, and researchers are left to be put in a situation where they must constantly sell (and over-sell) the implications of their theories. This then leads to science suffering as most researchers only pursue *the most promising* ideas. But that raises the question: How do you determine the most promising ideas? Most likely, from the judgement of other scientists, who are similarly biased. Sabine says, "Don't trust me, I'm a scientist."
I especially enjoyed the last interview with George Ellis, which pointed out how some of the questions that preoccupy modern day physicists are philosophical questions, not physical ones. The lines between these fields seems to have blurred when we have scientists like Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss making claims that science proves that God doesn't exist--which science cannot prove. These scientists are not making scientific claims, but being sloppy philosophers. This results in a public hostility against science, and a question of what science can and cannot do? "What can it say about human values, about worth and purpose?"
Sabine says, "Is it ever justified to use aesthetic perception to assess laws of nature? Do we have any reason to believe that laws that are more fundamental should also be simpler? And if scientists churn out hypotheses by the hundreds to keep the presses going, what are good criteria to assess the promise of their ideas?
We need philosophers to bridge the gap between pre-scientific confusion and scientific argumentation."
Sabine akins the desire for physical laws to be beautiful a kind of "aesthetic bias," to be added to a list of cognitive biases that researchers can easily subcumb to. There are checks in experimental physics to prevent bias in its various forms, but Sabine makes the case for there to be more checks in theoretical physics as well.
Physics isn't math. It's choosing the right math. Doing the right math requires asking the right questions. Philosophers could provide aid to determine if we are asking the right questions. As George Ellis said, "Minding the boundary between science and philosophy, I think, could help physicists separate fact from belief. And I don't see a big difference between believing nature is beautiful and believing God is kind."
A must read for researchers, especially theoretical ones.
Sabine makes interesting observations for the state of science today. A successful academic paper has the same recipe as a successful song: We want it to be surprising, but not *too* surprising. We still want the paper, or song, to follow the expected convention most of the time, but without intrigue and something unexpected, we wouldn't pay attention.
She points out the challenges that scientists face today in terms of job security: how there are many temporary research positions while tenured positions continue to dry up, and researchers are left to be put in a situation where they must constantly sell (and over-sell) the implications of their theories. This then leads to science suffering as most researchers only pursue *the most promising* ideas. But that raises the question: How do you determine the most promising ideas? Most likely, from the judgement of other scientists, who are similarly biased. Sabine says, "Don't trust me, I'm a scientist."
I especially enjoyed the last interview with George Ellis, which pointed out how some of the questions that preoccupy modern day physicists are philosophical questions, not physical ones. The lines between these fields seems to have blurred when we have scientists like Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss making claims that science proves that God doesn't exist--which science cannot prove. These scientists are not making scientific claims, but being sloppy philosophers. This results in a public hostility against science, and a question of what science can and cannot do? "What can it say about human values, about worth and purpose?"
Sabine says, "Is it ever justified to use aesthetic perception to assess laws of nature? Do we have any reason to believe that laws that are more fundamental should also be simpler? And if scientists churn out hypotheses by the hundreds to keep the presses going, what are good criteria to assess the promise of their ideas?
We need philosophers to bridge the gap between pre-scientific confusion and scientific argumentation."
Sabine akins the desire for physical laws to be beautiful a kind of "aesthetic bias," to be added to a list of cognitive biases that researchers can easily subcumb to. There are checks in experimental physics to prevent bias in its various forms, but Sabine makes the case for there to be more checks in theoretical physics as well.
Physics isn't math. It's choosing the right math. Doing the right math requires asking the right questions. Philosophers could provide aid to determine if we are asking the right questions. As George Ellis said, "Minding the boundary between science and philosophy, I think, could help physicists separate fact from belief. And I don't see a big difference between believing nature is beautiful and believing God is kind."
A must read for researchers, especially theoretical ones.