Most recent theories in fundamental physics have remained without empirical confirmation of their core characteristic predictions for very long periods of time. Examples range from theories of quantum gravity such as string theory, over cosmological theories such as inflation, to BSM theories such as low energy supersymmetry. In some cases, high hopes of discovery were not fulfilled or announcements of discovery turned out ill-founded. One response to this series of disappointments, both in physics and the philosophy of physics, has been an endorsement of scientific agnosticism. In experimental physics, this position amounts to emphasizing experimental strategies that are as little theory driven as possible. In theoretical physics, it amounts to avoiding any open declaration of trust in their theory by those working on theories that have not found conclusive empirical testing. In the philosophy of science, it amounts to focusing on reasons for a theory’s pursuit-worthiness rather than arguments for its viability.

In this talk, I aim to show that the described tendency is based on a misreading of the recent history of physics, is conceptually unsatisfactory, and may, in the long run, carry serious risks for fundamental physics. Based on the presented reasoning, I propose an alternative perspective on the current situation in fundamental physics.

Contact: Francisco Calderón, fcalder@umich.edu