The role of speculation in science

https://magazine.krieger.jhu.edu/2018/11...eculation/


“Bayesian evidence is anything that increases the probability of your theory,” Achinstein explains. “It’s a crazy idea. And it’s a dangerous idea. If string theorists think that anything that increases the probability of their theory is evidence, then they probably won’t worry about the absence of empirical tests. They will probably think, and in some cases write, that an appeal to the simplicity, beauty, or necessity of a theory will increase its probability and hence count as evidence in its favor.”


In Speculation, Achinstein challenges an important claim made by string theorists and many other scientists. The claim is that there exists some fundamental theory, a so-called “theory of everything” (TOE), that will explain and unify all the phenomena in the universe by appeal to one set of basic laws and objects. He points to an assertion by philosopher Thomas Nagel, who seeks to provide such a theory, that in order to do science, you have to presuppose that the world is simple, unified, and completely understandable.

Achinstein takes issue with that. “Why couldn’t it be the case that, as God says to Job: ‘It’s too complicated for you?’ The claim that there is a TOE, or that scientists must presuppose that there is, is itself a speculation, indeed a very grand one.”

We don't even really know what "something" is, never mind what "everything" is. You can break something down to small particles but then it changes into waves (apparently) but what are they made of ?

Without being morbid, finding out the answers to all these questions is something I actually look forward to (in death).

Steve001?  A witty retort perhaps?

Steve001?  A witty retort perhaps?

Tut tut, that's conspiracy theorist thinking.

https://magazine.krieger.jhu.edu/2018/11...eculation/


“Bayesian evidence is anything that increases the probability of your theory,” Achinstein explains. “It’s a crazy idea. And it’s a dangerous idea. If string theorists think that anything that increases the probability of their theory is evidence, then they probably won’t worry about the absence of empirical tests. They will probably think, and in some cases write, that an appeal to the simplicity, beauty, or necessity of a theory will increase its probability and hence count as evidence in its favor.”


In Speculation, Achinstein challenges an important claim made by string theorists and many other scientists. The claim is that there exists some fundamental theory, a so-called “theory of everything” (TOE), that will explain and unify all the phenomena in the universe by appeal to one set of basic laws and objects. He points to an assertion by philosopher Thomas Nagel, who seeks to provide such a theory, that in order to do science, you have to presuppose that the world is simple, unified, and completely understandable.

Achinstein takes issue with that. “Why couldn’t it be the case that, as God says to Job: ‘It’s too complicated for you?’ The claim that there is a TOE, or that scientists must presuppose that there is, is itself a speculation, indeed a very grand one.”

This topic has me going for the last days.  I think crucial ideas revolve around it.  One is abductive thinking -- and how we as the general public relate to QM.  The other is creative thinking in science.  I am sorry Linda or Steve didn't respond.

First, we should put the topic in the perspective framework of the HUGE role Bayesian reasoning plays in modern algorithms, which are useful, not only to pure science, but underpin the real-worlds of commerce, software development and social sciences.

The linked article is a book review commenting on Achinstein's thinking.  Here are the paragraphs before the quote about Bayesian evidence from Achinstein. 

In works such as Particles and Waves (which won the Lakatos Award in 1993), The Book of Evidence, Scientific Evidence, and Evidence and Method, Achinstein developed a standard for scientific evidence that requires the high probability of an explanatory connection between evidence and hypothesis.

String theorists and other researchers seeking unifying explanations for phenomena in the physical universe favor a different standard of evidence, rooted in the work of 18th-century statistician and philosopher Thomas Bayes. - ibid

The reviewer echos Achinstein's attack of string theory, I think unfairly blames Bayes as a culprit for a lack of empirical needs.  Bayesian reasoning is a complimentary method of data interpretation to physical testing - not a competitor, imho.

OK - that lead me to abduction reasoning, where most scientific theories start.

 Abduction versus Bayesian Confirmation Theory

In the past decade, Bayesian confirmation theory has firmly established itself as the dominant view on confirmation; currently one cannot very well discuss a confirmation-theoretic issue without making clear whether, and if so why, one’s position on that issue deviates from standard Bayesian thinking. Abduction, in whichever version, assigns a confirmation-theoretic role to explanation: explanatory considerations contribute to making some hypotheses more credible, and others less so. By contrast, Bayesian confirmation theory makes no reference at all to the concept of explanation. Does this imply that abduction is at loggerheads with the prevailing doctrine in confirmation theory? Several authors have recently argued that not only is abduction compatible with Bayesianism, it is a much-needed supplement to it.

Why this rant from me?   I think that the pathway to confirmation of Psi phenomena is through abductive inference and Bayesian confirmation.  Speculation in science is just this category of abductive inference expressed as formal hypothesis.  

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduc...rBayConThe