The “unity of science thesis” (everything can and should be reduced to fundamental physics) is no longer credible, but neither is strong disunity (every science is an autonomous domain). Interesting research tends to cross discipline boundaries and levels of description.
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!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.