Abstracts

G. Hon and B. R. Goldstein: Numerical Agreement vs. Aesthetically Motivated Explanation: Cosmology in Ptolemy and Copernicus

In this paper we analyze two distinct methodologies that resulted in two theories of the structure of the cosmos. Our focus is on the geocentric and heliocentric cosmologies presented by Ptolemy and Copernicus, respectively, in their epoch-making works, the Planetary hypotheses on the one hand, and De revolutionibus, on the other. We formulate and contrast Ptolemy’s and Copernicus’s methodologies, and then draw philosophical consequences from this comparative analysis. We show how a set of commitments, functioning as metaphysical assumptions, determines the goal of a research enterprise as well as its criterion of success. We argue that from the outset Ptolemy’s goal was quantitative whereas that of Copernicus was qualitative, motivated by aesthetic considerations. Ptolemy sought numerical agreement between observation and theory, while Copernicus looked for explanation—how best to explain cosmological phenomena, based on symmetry and harmony. The reconstruction of their argumentative structures and the philosophical analysis of the link between commitments and consequences shed light on the fundamental differences between Ptolemy and Copernicus. Finally, we consider some broader implications of the role of aesthetic factors in scientific research.

Beatriz Ruiz-Granados: A tour around the standard cosmological model and beyond

Recent observations of cosmic microwave radiation coming from space-based satellites and ground-based experiments as well as large-scale structure surveys have provided a solid support for establishing the standard cosmological model of the Universe. In this standard picture, 95% of the composition (or energy budget) of the Universe is unknown, but we are able to explain how it evolves in terms of the “unknowns", i.e. dark matter and dark energy. In this talk: (1) we review the standard cosmological model and the observations that support it; (2) we discuss the open problems/limits of the model; and (3) we present some physics proposals for going beyond. Finally we discuss the implications of these proposals from an aesthetic point of view.

Sixto Castro: Sublime is the new beautiful

According to Richard Rorty, we cannot oppose beautiful and sublime before Kant. Pseudo-Longinus didn’t oppose hypsos and kalós. Only Burke and Addison, in the mid-eighteenth century, built that opposition, and Kant, in the Critic of Judgement, will establish the contrast we consider as canonical today. The difference between both has to do with the contrast between finite and infinite, conditioned and unconditioned, understanding and reason as operating faculties. The sublime relates to an overwhelming power that makes humans aware of their finitude. This new concept resembles the religious idea that Rudolf Otto called “The Holy” (fearful, fascinating mystery), and it fits the new approach to nature as something awesome beyond all our cognitive powers. Beauty as a category suitable to describe nature becomes less popular. But when it comes to the reflection about scientific theories and the aims of scientific research, the presence of beauty is still pervasive. 

Adán Sus: Symmetries of laws, spacetime symmetries and the kinematics-dynamics distinction

The debate generated by Harvey Brown's dynamical approach to Special Relativity sets at the center the question about the relation between spacetime symmetries and the symmetries of laws. While the standard view defends that spacetime structure somehow explains the symmetries of dynamical laws in a theory, the dynamical approach seems to revert the arrow of explanation. In recent times, different authors have criticized the rendition of the debate in terms of explanatory priority, but it is still open what kind of relation we are dealing with. In this talk, I rehearse the original debate and then address the general question about the relation between spacetime and dynamical symmetries. The discussion will lead us to the question about the necessity and status of some principles that determine the kinematical constrains needed for the formulation of the dynamical laws of a theory. And such a question is directly related to the problem of the limits of physics. In relation to this, I will argue the following: First, that the two extreme positions of the debate represent a particular way of addressing the question about the limits that involves taking a primitivist stance towards either spacetime or laws respectively, but they have to face their own problems. Second, that it is interesting to explore a third way, that focuses on principles from which both spacetime symmetries and symmetries of laws derive and that takes to the fore a way of understanding the limits as conditions on the formulation of physical theories taken as constitutive principles. 

Ruth Lorand: Scientific Beauty and Aesthetic Order

Beauty is often suggested as a criterion for deciding among scientific theories. In this paper, I offer a theory of aesthetic order that associates beauty and science via the concept of order. I show that beauty is indeed relevant to science since it expresses lawfulness and necessity, features that motivate scientific research. However, the hope that the kind of order expressed by beauty supplies means for choosing the more truthful theory is problematic for reasons inherent to the nature of aesthetic order. My argument consists of three steps:

1. A brief account of the traditional, prevailing concept of order.

2. An examination of three attempts to define beauty based on the traditional concept of order, exposing thereby the inherent inadequacies.

3. Suggesting a fourth option, based on a different kind of order that expresses the paradoxical nature of beauty and its limited relevance to science.

Carlos Barceló: Probing extreme gravity in gravitational collapse

The most promising situation where one could find effects beyond general relativity is gravitational collapse. While in classical general relativity this process leads to the formation of singularities, one expects that new physics enters to regularize them. However, theories aimed to solve the singularity problem face new problems. In particular, most of them are set up in such a way that they don't appear to be falsifiable. A radical way out of this situation is to give up a hypothesis which is tacitly assumed in the vast majority of works on the subject: that the classical singularity is substituted by something effectively acting as a sink for a long period of time, as seen by asymptotic observers. Eliminating this characteristic changes drastically much of the physics now associated to black holes. A nice feature of the new hypothesis it that it offers a clear possibility of experimental falsifiability with upcoming gravitational waves observations. In this talk I will discuss these possibilities.

Henrik Zinkernagel: Aesthetics at the limits of quantum theory

Physicists have often emphasized the beauty of theories and explanations. But there is more to aesthetics in science than beauty. Thus, a broader conception of aesthetics includes, for instance, the joy of insight and the notion of the sublime (related to awe, wonder and that which lies at the limits of, or perhaps beyond, scientific understanding). In this talk, I first discuss the role of aesthetics in the historical development of quantum theory, with an emphasis on aesthetic considerations regarding the limits of the new theory. These limits concern both those conceived by physicists being at (or crossing) the boundaries of established knowledge, as well as the possible inherent limitations to our understanding of nature suggested by the theory. I then briefly review some limits associated with contemporary quantum physics and the search for a quantum theory of gravity. During the talk, I will argue that aesthetic aspects of physics (and its limits) play an important motivational role for physicists, and at the end I will suggest that such aspects could also be relevant in a more general cultural (and educational) setting.

Mauricio Suárez: Aesthetic Goals in Model Building

I defend the view that there are aesthetic goals to model building in physics, reliant on notions of elegance - both formal and intuitive -; and I illustrate the thesis by a careful consideration of the history and uses of Feynman diagrams.

Catherine Elgin: Beyond Truth and Beauty: Aesthetic Factors in Science

Scientific theories, models, experiments, and the like are often subject to aesthetic assessment.  Is there any good epistemic reason to prefer an elegant experiment to an inelegant one, a beautiful theory to an ugly one, a streamlined model to one that seems more like a Rube Goldberg machine?  What are we focusing on when we make such assessments? I will argue that aesthetic factors are integral to good science.  They are not mere instruments.  Nor is their utility primarily practical.  But there is no reason to think that they themselves are truth-conducive.  Rather, they figure in what it takes to make a scientific construct – theory, model, experiment or whatever – acceptable.  They do so, I suggest, because they are gatekeepers on acceptability: they play a regulative role.