Astrobiology is a scientific endeavour involving great uncertainties. This could justify intellec... more Astrobiology is a scientific endeavour involving great uncertainties. This could justify intellectual risk-taking associated with research that significantly deviates from the mainstream, to explore new avenues. However, little is known regarding the effect of such maverick endeavours. To better understand the need for more or less risk in astrobiology, we investigate to what extent high-risk / high-impact research contributes to breakthrough results in the discipline. We gathered a sample of the most impactful astrobiology papers of the past 20 years and explored the degree of risk of the research projects behind these papers via contact with the corresponding authors. We carried out interviews to explore how attitudes towards risk have played out in their work, and to ascertain their opinions on risk-taking in astrobiology. We show the majority of the selected breakthrough results derive from endeavours considered medium- or high-risk, risk is significantly correlated with impact,...
Kirchhoff’s diffraction theory is introduced as a new case study in the realism debate. The theor... more Kirchhoff’s diffraction theory is introduced as a new case study in the realism debate. The theory is extremely successful despite being both inconsistent and not even approximately true. Some habitual realist proclamations simply cannot be maintained in the face of Kirchhoff’s theory, as the realist is forced to acknowledge that theoretical success can in some circumstances be explained in terms other than truth. The idiosyncrasy (or otherwise) of Kirchhoff’s case is considered. The sole virtue of Kirchhoff’s theory of diffraction lies in its correct predictions and not in its false assumptions.
For many years—and with some energy since Laudan’s “Confutation of Convergent Realism” (1981)—the... more For many years—and with some energy since Laudan’s “Confutation of Convergent Realism” (1981)—the scientific realist has sought to accommodate examples of false-yet-successful theories in the history of science. One of the most prominent strategies is to identify ‘success fueling’ components of false theories that themselves are at least approximately true (judging by our current understanding). In this article I develop both sides of the debate, introducing new challenges from the history of science as well as suggesting adjustments to the divide et impera realist strategy. A new ‘recipe’ for the prospective identification of (at least some) working/idle posits is considered.
The ubiquitous assertion that the early calculus of Newton and Leibniz was an inconsistent theory... more The ubiquitous assertion that the early calculus of Newton and Leibniz was an inconsistent theory is examined. Two different objects of a possible inconsistency claim are distinguished: (i) the calculus as an algorithm; (ii) proposed explanations of the moves made within the ...
On p. 10 of the 2018 National Academies Exoplanet Science Strategy document (NASEM 2018), ‘Expect... more On p. 10 of the 2018 National Academies Exoplanet Science Strategy document (NASEM 2018), ‘Expect the unexpected’ is described as a general principle of the exoplanet field. But for the next 150 pages, this principle is apparently forgotten, as strategy decisions are repeatedly put forward based on our expectations. This paper explores what exactly it might mean to ‘expect the unexpected’, and how this could possibly be achieved by the space science community. An analogy with financial investment strategies is considered, where a balanced portfolio of low/medium/high-risk investments is recommended. Whilst this kind of strategy would certainly be advisable in many scientific contexts (past and present), in certain contexts – especially exploratory science – a significant disanalogy needs to be factored in: financial investors cannot choose low-risk high-reward investments, but sometimes scientists can. The existence of low-risk high-impact projects in cutting-edge space science sign...
Is science getting at the truth? The sceptics – those who spread doubt about science – often empl... more Is science getting at the truth? The sceptics – those who spread doubt about science – often employ a simple argument: scientists were sure in the past, and then they ended up being wrong. Such sceptics draw on dramatic quotes from eminent scientists such as Lord Kelvin, who reportedly stated at the turn of the 20th century “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now,” shortly before physics was dramatically transformed. They ask: given the history of science, wouldn’t it be naïve to think that current scientific theories reveal ‘the truth’, and will never be discarded in favour of other theories? Through a combination of historical investigation and philosophical-sociological analysis, Identifying Future-Proof Science defends science against such potentially dangerous scepticism. It is argued that we can confidently identify many scientific claims that are future-proof: they will last forever, so long as science continues. How do we identify future-proof claims? This appe...
The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 2018
Probably the most dramatic historical challenge to scientific realism concerns Arnold Sommerfeld’... more Probably the most dramatic historical challenge to scientific realism concerns Arnold Sommerfeld’s ([1916]) derivation of the fine structure energy levels of hydrogen. Not only were his predictions good, he derived exactly the same formula that would later drop out of Dirac’s 1928 treatment (something not possible using 1925 Schrödinger–Heisenberg quantum mechanics). And yet the most central elements of Sommerfeld’s theory were not even approximately true: his derivation leans heavily on a classical approach to elliptical orbits, including the necessary adjustments to these orbits demanded by relativity. Even physicists call Sommerfeld’s success a ‘miracle’, which rather makes a joke of the so-called ‘no miracles argument’. However, this can all be turned around. Here I argue that the realist has a story to tell vis-à-vis the discontinuities between the old and the new theory, leading to a realist defence based on sufficient continuity of relevant structure. 1Introduction2No Realist...
Astrobiology is a scientific endeavour involving great uncertainties. This could justify intellec... more Astrobiology is a scientific endeavour involving great uncertainties. This could justify intellectual risk-taking associated with research that significantly deviates from the mainstream, to explore new avenues. However, little is known regarding the effect of such maverick endeavours. To better understand the need for more or less risk in astrobiology, we investigate to what extent high-risk / high-impact research contributes to breakthrough results in the discipline. We gathered a sample of the most impactful astrobiology papers of the past 20 years and explored the degree of risk of the research projects behind these papers via contact with the corresponding authors. We carried out interviews to explore how attitudes towards risk have played out in their work, and to ascertain their opinions on risk-taking in astrobiology. We show the majority of the selected breakthrough results derive from endeavours considered medium- or high-risk, risk is significantly correlated with impact,...
Kirchhoff’s diffraction theory is introduced as a new case study in the realism debate. The theor... more Kirchhoff’s diffraction theory is introduced as a new case study in the realism debate. The theory is extremely successful despite being both inconsistent and not even approximately true. Some habitual realist proclamations simply cannot be maintained in the face of Kirchhoff’s theory, as the realist is forced to acknowledge that theoretical success can in some circumstances be explained in terms other than truth. The idiosyncrasy (or otherwise) of Kirchhoff’s case is considered. The sole virtue of Kirchhoff’s theory of diffraction lies in its correct predictions and not in its false assumptions.
For many years—and with some energy since Laudan’s “Confutation of Convergent Realism” (1981)—the... more For many years—and with some energy since Laudan’s “Confutation of Convergent Realism” (1981)—the scientific realist has sought to accommodate examples of false-yet-successful theories in the history of science. One of the most prominent strategies is to identify ‘success fueling’ components of false theories that themselves are at least approximately true (judging by our current understanding). In this article I develop both sides of the debate, introducing new challenges from the history of science as well as suggesting adjustments to the divide et impera realist strategy. A new ‘recipe’ for the prospective identification of (at least some) working/idle posits is considered.
The ubiquitous assertion that the early calculus of Newton and Leibniz was an inconsistent theory... more The ubiquitous assertion that the early calculus of Newton and Leibniz was an inconsistent theory is examined. Two different objects of a possible inconsistency claim are distinguished: (i) the calculus as an algorithm; (ii) proposed explanations of the moves made within the ...
On p. 10 of the 2018 National Academies Exoplanet Science Strategy document (NASEM 2018), ‘Expect... more On p. 10 of the 2018 National Academies Exoplanet Science Strategy document (NASEM 2018), ‘Expect the unexpected’ is described as a general principle of the exoplanet field. But for the next 150 pages, this principle is apparently forgotten, as strategy decisions are repeatedly put forward based on our expectations. This paper explores what exactly it might mean to ‘expect the unexpected’, and how this could possibly be achieved by the space science community. An analogy with financial investment strategies is considered, where a balanced portfolio of low/medium/high-risk investments is recommended. Whilst this kind of strategy would certainly be advisable in many scientific contexts (past and present), in certain contexts – especially exploratory science – a significant disanalogy needs to be factored in: financial investors cannot choose low-risk high-reward investments, but sometimes scientists can. The existence of low-risk high-impact projects in cutting-edge space science sign...
Is science getting at the truth? The sceptics – those who spread doubt about science – often empl... more Is science getting at the truth? The sceptics – those who spread doubt about science – often employ a simple argument: scientists were sure in the past, and then they ended up being wrong. Such sceptics draw on dramatic quotes from eminent scientists such as Lord Kelvin, who reportedly stated at the turn of the 20th century “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now,” shortly before physics was dramatically transformed. They ask: given the history of science, wouldn’t it be naïve to think that current scientific theories reveal ‘the truth’, and will never be discarded in favour of other theories? Through a combination of historical investigation and philosophical-sociological analysis, Identifying Future-Proof Science defends science against such potentially dangerous scepticism. It is argued that we can confidently identify many scientific claims that are future-proof: they will last forever, so long as science continues. How do we identify future-proof claims? This appe...
The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 2018
Probably the most dramatic historical challenge to scientific realism concerns Arnold Sommerfeld’... more Probably the most dramatic historical challenge to scientific realism concerns Arnold Sommerfeld’s ([1916]) derivation of the fine structure energy levels of hydrogen. Not only were his predictions good, he derived exactly the same formula that would later drop out of Dirac’s 1928 treatment (something not possible using 1925 Schrödinger–Heisenberg quantum mechanics). And yet the most central elements of Sommerfeld’s theory were not even approximately true: his derivation leans heavily on a classical approach to elliptical orbits, including the necessary adjustments to these orbits demanded by relativity. Even physicists call Sommerfeld’s success a ‘miracle’, which rather makes a joke of the so-called ‘no miracles argument’. However, this can all be turned around. Here I argue that the realist has a story to tell vis-à-vis the discontinuities between the old and the new theory, leading to a realist defence based on sufficient continuity of relevant structure. 1Introduction2No Realist...
Uploads
Papers by Peter Vickers