/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10525386
I think she is quite wrong regarding beauty. It's true that there is no requirement for all theories to be beautiful, but she does not give due consideration to that fact that all known theories which are correct are both correct and beautiful. Therefore, even though there is no guarantee that the next theory will also be beautiful, scientists who have no idea what the next theory will look like or how to find it are well motivated to look for a beautiful theory. Sabine seems to argue that they are not well motivated to do so, and that out of the infinite sea of possibly theories she thinks scientists would be correct to just grasp for the straw of any random theory rather than grasping for the straw of any random beautiful theory. Grasping at any random straw is ok, but her argument that grasping for a random beautiful straw is somehow wrong is mind boggling to me coming as it does from a very reasonable seeming woman.