10 June 2019

On Theories (1960-1969)

"As every mathematician knows, nothing is more fruitful than these obscure analogies, these indistinct reflections of one theory into another, these furtive caresses, these inexplicable disagreements; also nothing gives the researcher greater pleasure." (André Weil, "De la Métaphysique aux Mathématiques", 1960)

"In imagination there exists the perfect mystery story. Such a story presents all the essential clews, and compels us to form our own theory of the case. If we follow the plot carefully we arrive at the complete solution for ourselves just before the author’s disclosure at the end of the book. The solution itself, contrary to those of inferior mysteries, does not disappoint us; moreover, it appears at the very moment we expect it." (Leopold Infeld, "The Evolution of Physics", 1961)

"The problems are the ones that we have always known. The little gods are still with us, under different names. There is conformity: of technique, leading to repetition; of language, encouraging if not imposing conformity of thought. There is popularity: it is so easy to ride along on an already surging tide; to plant more seed in an already well-ploughed field; so hard to drive a new furrow into stony ground. There is laxness: the disregard of small errors, of deviations, of the unexpected response; the easy worship of the smooth curve. There is also fear: the fear of speculation; the overprotective fear of being wrong. We are forgetful of the curious and wayward dialectic of science, whereby a well-constructed theory even if it is wrong, can bring a signal advance." (Dickinson W Richards, Transactions of the Association of American Physicians Vol. 75, 1962)

"It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature the fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power, needing quite a high standard of mathematics for one to understand it. You may wonder: Why is nature constructed along these lines? One can only answer that our present knowledge seems to show that nature is so constructed. We simply have to accept it. " (Paul A M Dirac , “The Evolution of the Physicist’s Picture of Nature”, Scientific American, 1963)

"A theory with mathematical beauty is more likely to be correct than an ugly one that fits some experimental data." (Paul A M Dirac, Scientific American, 1963)

"The final test of a theory is its capacity to solve the problems which originated it." (George Dantzig, "Linear Programming and Extensions", 1963)

“It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory - if we look for confirmations. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions. […] A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or refute it.” (Karl R Popper, “Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge”, 1963)

"One of the endlessly alluring aspects of mathematics is that its thorniest paradoxes have a way of blooming into beautiful theories.” (Philip J Davis, "Number", Scientific American, No 211 (3), 1964)

"Scientific discovery, or the formulation of scientific theory, starts in with the unvarnished and unembroidered evidence of the senses. It starts with simple observation - simple, unbiased, unprejudiced, naive, or innocent observation - and out of this sensory evidence, embodied in the form of simple propositions or declarations of fact, generalizations will grow up and take shape, almost as if some process of crystallization or condensation were taking place. Out of a disorderly array of facts, an orderly theory, an orderly general statement, will somehow emerge." (Sir Peter B Medawar, "Is the Scientific Paper Fraudulent?", The Saturday Review, 1964)

"Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong. If the guess that you make is poorly expressed and rather vague, and the method that you use for figuring out the consequences is a little vague - you are not sure, and you say, 'I think everything's right because it's all due to so and so, and such and such do this and that more or less, and I can sort of explain how this works' […] then you see that this theory is good, because it cannot be proved wrong! Also if the process of computing the consequences is indefinite, then with a little skill any experimental results can be made to look like the expected consequences." (Richard P Feynman, "The Character of Physical Law", 1965)

"This is the key of modern science and it was the beginning of the true understanding of Nature - this idea to look at the thing, to record the details, and to hope that in the information thus obtained might lie a clue to one or another theoretical interpretation." (Richard P Feynman, "The Character of Physical Law", 1965)

"Theories are usually introduced when previous study of a class of phenomena has revealed a system of uniformities. […] Theories then seek to explain those regularities and, generally, to afford a deeper and more accurate understanding of the phenomena in question. To this end, a theory construes those phenomena as manifestations of entities and processes that lie behind or beneath them, as it were." (Carl G Hempel, "Philosophy of Natural Science", 1966)

"A theory is scientific only if it can be disproved. But the moment you try to cover absolutely everything the chances are that you cover nothing." (Sir Hermann Bondi, "Assumption and Myth in Physical Theory", 1967) 

"'You cannot base a general mathematical theory on imprecisely defined concepts. You can make some progress that way; but sooner or later the theory is bound to dissolve in ambiguities which prevent you from extending it further.' Failure to recognize this fact has another unfortunate consequence which is, in a practical sense, even more disastrous: 'Unless the conceptual problems of a field have been clearly resolved, you cannot say which mathematical problems are the relevant ones worth working on; and your efforts are more than likely to be wasted.'" (Edwin T Jaynes, "Foundations of Probability Theory and Statistical Mechanics", 1967)

"As soon as we inquire into the reasons for the phenomena, we enter the domain of theory, which connects the observed phenomena and traces them back to a single ‘pure’ phenomena, thus bringing about a logical arrangement of an enormous amount of observational material." (Georg Joos, "Theoretical Physics", 1968)

"It makes no sense to say what the objects of a theory are, beyond saying how to interpret or reinterpret that theory in another." (Willard v O Quine, "Ontological Relativity and Other Essays", 1969)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

On Hypothesis Testing III

  "A little thought reveals a fact widely understood among statisticians: The null hypothesis, taken literally (and that’s the only way...