What makes extraordinary science extraordinary?

My article for this month appears on Sean Carroll’s blog, Preposterous UniverseSean is a theoretical physicist who practices cosmology at Caltech. He interfaces with philosophy, which tinges the question I confront: What distinguishes extraordinary science from good science? The topic seemed an opportunity to take Sean up on an invitation to guest-post on Preposterous Universe. Head there for my article. Thanks to Sean for hosting!

Big Dipper

This entry was posted in Real science, Reflections by Nicole Yunger Halpern. Bookmark the permalink.

About Nicole Yunger Halpern

I recently completed a physics PhD with the buccaneers of Quantum Frontiers. Starting in Sept. 2018, I'll work as an ITAMP Postdoctoral Fellow at the Harvard-Smithsonian Institute for Theoretical Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics (ITAMP). You'll be able to catch me at ITAMP, in Harvard's physics department, or at MIT. My research consists of what I like to call "quantum steampunk": I combine quantum information with thermodynamics, contributing to the theory of quantum thermodynamics and applying quantum thermodynamics across science. Before beginning my PhD at Caltech, I studied at Dartmouth College and the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. I like my quantum information physical, my math algebraic, and my spins rotated but not stirred.

4 thoughts on “What makes extraordinary science extraordinary?

  1. HI Yunger , i really like this blog and collective. I think that an extraordinary scientis needs to ba at least veryyy well versed in philosophy. Science is natural philosophy, and just to mention a few, Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrodinger where good philosophers too (just take a look at “Nature and the Greeks” or “Mind and Matter” from Erwin).
    Modern science is full of closed minded thecnical people that mocks at philosophy and they really dont have a clue…
    Carlo Rovelli has an interesting talk about this (youtube)

    • Numerous physicists, including e.g. Weinberg, have been very good philosophers, too. Some things have changed in the society, e.g. the self-described philosophers became much more hostile to science than self-described philosophers were some 100 years ago.

      That’s one of the obvious and important reasons why it’s mostly right to mock philosophers these days. The meaning of “philosophy” has transformed sufficiently so that they approximate the people trying to restore the unscientific way of thinking from the Middle Ages.

      The 21st century intelligent world works differently. Indeed, relatively to some medieval perspective, most scientists must look “technical” and “closed-minded” but the possibility to focus on the technical questions – because the more general or philosophical ones have been settled and became obvious – and to be closed-minded, because “closed mind” often comes from “settled research” – are the testimonies of the progress that has taken place, is still taken place, and unscientific Luddites like you (and partly Rovelli) are denying it.

Your thoughts here.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s