Originally Posted by Prune
I have never heard anyone define philosophy the way you did. It is not the job of the philosopher to postulate scientific theories, it is the job of the scientists to both do that and test them -- thus the distinction between theoretical and experimental scientists in some theories (especially physics). Physics theories are generally born in the minds of theoretical physicists, not philosophers. In regards to science, philosophy concerns itself with metaphysics, ontologies, etc., defining what science is, how its methods can be rationally justified, and just what scientific results actually mean. Doing the science is left to the scientists.
That's pretty recent. It's only been the case from the start of the 20th century. Keep in mind that Enrico Fermi was a great theoretician
and experimentalist. The big reason for the dichotomy nowadays seems to be that the mathematical sophistication required for most "research grade" theoretical physics precludes one from being at the forefront in both "fields". As far as I know, one of the prerequisites for being a good experimentalist is understanding the underlying theory. And I mean they have to really understand it well enough to know exactly what they're doing, and not hackishly applying equations for no apparent reason, I mean, that's what engineers are for, right
* You'll note that such a dichotomy
does not exist in the other sciences (I'm not counting "theoretical" chemists here, since they're basically molecular physicists in the Chemistry building).
Addressing the Philosophy issue, I've heard from some fellows (odd ones, but respected nonetheless) that philosophy will have increasing importance in Physics as we move along into this new century (which, unfortunately for me, looks to be the century of Biology). Here at the University of Washington, we've got a Professor of Philosophy that's adjunct in Physics. He's even got several PRLs under his belt, so one assumes that he knows his stuff. I'm not going to defend it any further than to say that philosophy did, at one point in time, have a place in Physics. To say that it never will again, is ... well, bold, I think. Don't get me wrong, I like to mock philosophers as much as the next guy (one recalls the Sokal hoax with fond memories), but I think that to seriously write them off wholesale is a bit much.
As for the topic of the thread, I believe very strongly in blind tests. I have such
faith in them that I further believe they represent the only
true data (though perhaps it's going a bit far...). Sure, they have to be conducted right, but to discard them as useful tools simply because they
usually aren't conducted right is foolhardy. A dearth of good data is merely evidence that someone needs to take good data. The fact that the people with the most interest in this field, with the greatest resources for accomplishing these tasks have not even attempted them implies to me that the effects in question must not exist. It is simply a matter of money and desire, and don't tell me that magazines like
Stereophile lack the funds. As for desire, I would expect anyone with a finite budget to find this information at the heart of the matter.
Now ... as for Mr. Atkinson
Originally Posted by John Atkinson
[...]This collection a) proves that, of all scientists, theoretical physicists seem to have their feet most firmly on the bedrock of reality,[...]
I hate you. To pick arguably the most beloved of all physicists and apply him as a general model for all theoretical physicists (and modern ones at that!) is utter blasphemy. There is a very severe gap between the theorists of yore and those we are stuck with today (though the size of this gap, strongly depends on the particular subfield...). I have heard that Russian string theorists call themselves mathematicians and eshew the title "physicist" because they don't think that what they're doing is, strictly speaking, physics yet. Let us not forgot that the final arbiter of what is real and what is fantasy is the experimental result. Even Einstein knew this.
* For those that do not see that I am joking here, I am applying the standard engineer stereotype, as seen by physicists. I mean no harm, just thought I'd throw it in for kicks.