He’s taking a particular approach to (anti-)foundationalism that seems pretty sensible. One can regard the question of GR/QFT unification as interesting for some researchers without considering it of central importance to science in general.
Well, “rationalism” is approximately “using patterns of thought that are effective in physics in other places where they don’t work well.” So one *should* use those ways of thinking in physics, and if someone doesn’t, they may be making a mistake.
-
-
I took the GPS quote as meaning “don’t try to be foundational when doing engineering, even if you are combining quantum and relativity.” That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t think like a physicist when doing physics!
-
However, in the paper, Galison seems to endorsing the “just fit the data” approach in physics itself. As a non-physicist, I’m not qualified to have an opinion about whether that’s a good move. I’m inclined to agree with you that it’s dubious, but I’m an ignorant outsider!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.