Comments on: Releasing LHC Data http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2006/06/27/releasing-lhc-data/ Dedicated to the mathematical arts. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:33:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: D http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2006/06/27/releasing-lhc-data/#comment-58172 D Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:59:18 +0000 http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2006/06/27/releasing-lhc-data/#comment-58172 As an apprentice computer scientist, I can share that those who practice the type of "scientism" that Feyerabend is so concerned with are not practicing science in the proper sense. Certainly, the revolutionary theories are always looked down upon and cast aside at first. Like most people, scientists are reluctant to revise their (often) lives' work unless reasonable doubt can be placed on the theories they have used up to that point. I don't think it is fair to chastise them for this. That said, any proper scientist will tell you the methods we use are only tools. They should never, ever be raised to the level of dogma which Feyerabend fears. Science has always been, and should always be, the sublimely simple process of looking at phenomena, trying to figure out how they work, and coming to a democratic consensus based on repeat observation whether the idea should be accepted for the time being. For science to work at all it must be an ever-shape-shifting creature. As for the LHC data, it takes years upon years of training and theoretical knowledge to interperet that data into anything meaningful. I highly doubt any philosopher of science--or ANY person outside the realm of high energy nuclear physics for that matter--will have the wherewithal to take tau bosons, mesons, hadrons, etc.. and formulate something that makes sense to the average person. I know I cannot. As an apprentice computer scientist, I can share that those who practice the type of “scientism” that Feyerabend is so concerned with are not practicing science in the proper sense. Certainly, the revolutionary theories are always looked down upon and cast aside at first. Like most people, scientists are reluctant to revise their (often) lives’ work unless reasonable doubt can be placed on the theories they have used up to that point. I don’t think it is fair to chastise them for this. That said, any proper scientist will tell you the methods we use are only tools. They should never, ever be raised to the level of dogma which Feyerabend fears. Science has always been, and should always be, the sublimely simple process of looking at phenomena, trying to figure out how they work, and coming to a democratic consensus based on repeat observation whether the idea should be accepted for the time being. For science to work at all it must be an ever-shape-shifting creature.

As for the LHC data, it takes years upon years of training and theoretical knowledge to interperet that data into anything meaningful. I highly doubt any philosopher of science–or ANY person outside the realm of high energy nuclear physics for that matter–will have the wherewithal to take tau bosons, mesons, hadrons, etc.. and formulate something that makes sense to the average person. I know I cannot.

]]> By: Walt http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2006/06/27/releasing-lhc-data/#comment-1347 Walt Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:02:43 +0000 http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2006/06/27/releasing-lhc-data/#comment-1347 If I hadn't seen the story, I would have just thought, "Oh, that wacky Feyerabend. He's just trying to stir up trouble." Now, I wonder if he isn't totally right. If I hadn’t seen the story, I would have just thought, “Oh, that wacky Feyerabend. He’s just trying to stir up trouble.” Now, I wonder if he isn’t totally right.

]]> By: PeterMcB http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2006/06/27/releasing-lhc-data/#comment-1334 PeterMcB Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:06:48 +0000 http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2006/06/27/releasing-lhc-data/#comment-1334 The philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend once compared the contemporary assessment of theories in nuclear physics through the evidence of experiments to the interpretation by priests of vague statements issued by the Oracle at Delphi, with theoretical physicists playing an analogous role to the Greek high priests. If just anybody could get their hands on the data from experiments, then the privileged role of the high priests could be be much devalued. The philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend once compared the contemporary assessment of theories in nuclear physics through the evidence of experiments to the interpretation by priests of vague statements issued by the Oracle at Delphi, with theoretical physicists playing an analogous role to the Greek high priests. If just anybody could get their hands on the data from experiments, then the privileged role of the high priests could be be much devalued.

]]>