|
Interesting. I was just composing a similarly-themed post myself.
There is a well-known theorist on this board, and another well-known experimentalist. Each seems to have little time for the other (not just personally, but the theory person seems unwilling to listen to practical evidence that in any way contradicts his theory, just as the expermentalist seems unwilling to listen to conflicting theory). Understandable human nature, for the most part, but frustrating to watch nonetheless.
Both theory and experiment are useful and necessary parts of development. Using either in isolation impedes development and understanding.
When a fact arises that conflicts with theory, the theorist must accept that fact and adapt the theory to allow it. All too often, the theorist will deny the fact instead, claiming experimental error or outright deception.
The experimentalist has to be able to listen to theory that stretches the boundries of tangible facts. Denying well-accepted theory because it APPEARS to conflict with the facts is just as wrong as the theorist denying facts. Experimental error does happen, and facts are sometimes open to interpretation.
To some extent, available tools and the overreliance on those tools compounds the problem, fooling the tool user into believing exactly what they see, ignoring the limitations of the tool.
btw, I should point out that this blinkered view is hardly unique to this board, nor is it a sign of stupidity on the part of either person. Brilliant physicists, for example, have long been divided into theory and experiment camps. There has been back-biting and silly arguments between those two arenas for centuries. The smartest just avoid the arguments and draw their own conclusions based on the work of both sides.
|