String theory, Einstein, and the identity of physics: Theory assessment in absence of the empirical

TL;DR

This paper examines the debate over the identity and authority of string theorists versus critics, emphasizing the role of epistemic virtues, historical context, and the absence of empirical evidence in shaping scientific practice and identity.

Contribution

It offers a philosophical analysis of the identity of physicists and the role of non-empirical reasoning, informed by historical perspectives on Einstein and scientific innovation.

Findings

Debate over physicist identity is rooted in epistemic virtues and authority.

Historical analysis of Einstein illustrates different scientific identities.

Conflict periods can foster scientific innovation and new identities.

Abstract

String theorists are certain that they are practicing physicists. Yet, some of their recent critics deny this. This paper argues that this conflict is really about who holds authority in making rational judgment in theoretical physics. At bottom, the conflict centers on the question: who is a proper physicist? To illustrate and understand the differing opinions about proper practice and identity, we discuss different appreciations of epistemic virtues and explanation among string theorists and their critics, and how these have been sourced in accounts of Einstein's biography. Just as Einstein is claimed by both sides, historiography offers examples of both successful and unsuccessful non-empirical science. History of science also teaches that times of conflict are often times of innovation, in which novel scholarly identities may come into being. At the same time, since the contributions of Thomas Kuhn historians have developed a critical attitude towards formal attempts and methodological recipes for epistemic demarcation and justification of scientific practice. These are now, however, being considered in the debate on non-empirical physics.