Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T23:10:47.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Underdetermination and Theory Succession from the Perspective of String Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Richard Dawid
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates the implications of string theory for the conception of scientific theory confirmation. The classical understanding of theory confirmation is based on the assumption that scientific theory building is underdetermined by the available empirical data. Several arguments are presented, which suggest a devaluation of this ‘principle of scientific underdetermination’ in the context of string theory. An altered conception of scientific progress emerges that is not based on the notion of theory succession.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 73 , Issue 3 , July 2006 , pp. 298 - 322
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

I am grateful to Christian Damböck, Michael Dickson, Herbert Hrachovec, Manfred Kohlbach, Matthias Neuber, Richard Nickl, and two anonymous referees for interesting and very helpful comments on draft versions of this article and to Gretchen Simms for proofreading the article. This work was supported by the FWF research grant P15249.

References

Antoniadis, Ignatios, Arkani-Hamed, Nima, Dimopoulos, Savas, and Dvali, Gia R. (1998), “New Dimensions at a Millimeter to a Fermi and Superstrings at a TeV,” Physics Letters B 436:257–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, Jeremy, and Isham, Chris (2001), “Spacetime and the Philosophical Challenge of Quantum Gravity,” in Callender, Craig and Huggett, Nick (eds.), Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale: Contemporary Theories in Quantum Gravity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dawid, Richard (2003), “Scientific Realism in the Age of String Theory,” PITT-PHIL-SCI00001240.Google Scholar
Douglas, Michael (2003), “The Statistics of String/M Theory Vacua,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2003 (5): 046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gervais, Jean-Loup, and Sakita, B. (1971), “Field Theory Interpretation of Supergauges in Dual Models,” Nuclear Physics B 34:632–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Michael B., and Schwarz, John H. (1984), “Anomaly Cancellation in Supersymmetric D=10 Gauge Theory and Superstring Theory,” Physics Letters B 149:117–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Michael B., Schwarz, John H., and Witten, Edward (1987), Superstring Theory. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Greene, Brian (1999), The Elegant Universe. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Hedrich, Reiner (2002a), “Anforderungen an eine Physikalische Fundamentaltheorie,” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 33 (1): 23–60..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedrich, Reiner (2002b), “Superstring Theory and Empirical Testability,” PITT-PHIL-SCI00000608.Google Scholar
Horava, Petr, and Witten, Edward (1996), “Heterotic and Type I String Dynamics from Eleven Dimensions,” Nuclear Physics B 460:506–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry (1981), “A Confutation of Convergent Realism,” Philosophy of Science 48:19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Larry, and Leplin, Jarrett (1991), “Empirical Equivalence and Underdetermination,” Journal of Philosophy 88:449–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattingly, James (2005), “Is Quantum Gravity Necessary?” in Eisenstaedt, Jean and Kox, Anne (eds.), The Universe of General Relativity: Einstein Studies. Vol. 11. Boston: Birkhäuser.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, John D. (1993), “The Determination of Theory by Evidence: The Case for Quantum Discontinuity,” Synthese 97:1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, John D. (1994), “Science and Certainty,” Synthese 99:3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polchinski, Joseph (1998), String Theory. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Polchinski, Joseph (1999), “Quantum Gravity at the Planck Length,” International Journal of Modern Physics A 14:2633–2658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Hilary (1978), Meaning and Moral Sciences. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Quine, William V. (1970), “On the Reasons for Indeterminacy of Translation,” Journal of Philosophy 67:178–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rovelli, Carlo (1998), “Loop Quantum Gravity,” Living Review in Relativity 1: 1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rovelli, Carlo, and Smolin, Lee (1990), “Loop Space Representation of Quantum General Relativity,” Nuclear Physics B 331 (1): 80–152..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherk, Joel, and Schwarz, John H. (1974), “Dual Models for Nonhadrons,” Nuclear Physics B 81:118–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sklar, Lawrence (2000), Theory and Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Strominger, Andrew, and Vafa, Cumrun (1996), “Microscopic Origin of the Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy,” Physics Letters B 379:99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Susskind, Leonard (2003), “The Anthropic Landscape of String Theory,” hepth/0302219.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veneziano, Gabriele (1968), “Construction of a Crossing-Symmetric, Regge Behaved Amplitude for Linearly Rising Trajectories,” Nuovo Cimento A 57:90–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, Steven (2001), Facing Up. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingard, Robert (2001), “A Philosopher’s Look at String Theory,” in Callender, Craig and Huggett, Nick (eds.), Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale: Contemporary Theories in Quantum Gravity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Witten, Edward (1995), “String Theory Dynamics in Various Dimensions,” Nuclear Physics B 443:85–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witten, Edward (2001), “Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime,” in Callender, Craig and Huggett, Nick (eds.), Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale: Contemporary Theories in Quantum Gravity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Worrall, John (2000), “The Scope, Limits, and Distinctiveness of the Method of ‘Deduction from the Phenomena’: Some Lessons from Newton’s ‘Demonstrations’ in Optics,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51:45–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wüthrich, Christian (2005), “To Quantize or Not to Quantize: Fact and Folklore in Quantum Gravity,” Philosophy of Science 72 (Proceedings): S777–S788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar