The Pseudoscience of Fundamental Physics

(First published in 2017 on the website of Mentsch magazine)

Among today’s physicists, Stephen Hawking is arguably one of the better known. I sometimes ask friends and colleagues why he hasn’t yet been awarded a Nobel Prize? Most people are at loss to respond.

The answer is related to the three pillars which have been the hallmark of science since the early 17th century:

(i) development of theoretical models,

(ii) expression of these models with mathematics,

(iii) verification by observation. 

But today the third pillar is under threat, the principle of verification by observation. 

Is fundamental physics opening the door to pseudoscience?

It is probably wiser to follow Bob Dylan than Stephen Hawking in matters of science vs philosophy. That's what I claim in the article below. Such concerns surface when supporters of string theory and inflation theory defend their models.
My worry is with the voices that downplay the roles of experiment and observation on behalf of beauty for such theories to be regarded as credible. Read more in my science philosophizing a while ago in the new Mentsch web-magazine.

The editor of Mentsch called the article The Pseudoscience of Fundamental Physics

[It's unfortunately gone from the Mentsch website, so use the link above instead, "The Pseudoscience of Fundamental Physics".]