My Philosophy of Science
I believe that science should concern itself only with what is falsifiable; this criterion marks the clearest boundary between science and ideology. When Pierre-Simon Laplace was asked by Napoleon Bonaparte why his book on celestial mechanics did not mention God, he replied, "Because I have no need for that hypothesis." In the same way, science needs no creed, for it arises from curiosity and the humility to accept what one does not know, whereas ideology is born of certainty and the refusal to doubt. Science must remain free from external doctrines, with the merit of an idea judged solely by its empirical soundness. I take the scientific method to be the magnum opus of our species: the means by which we first illuminated the darkness and the purest expression of our desire to know.
​
One question I have not yet fully grappled with is why beauty and truth so often coincide. When a scientific idea possesses elegance and simplicity, it seems to reveal an inner harmony, a beauty that distinguishes it from theories that are contrived. It is certainly not proof (proofs, after all, belong to mathematics), yet it often suggests that a theory has captured something fundamental about nature. I would be surprised if, with the continuing progress of science, the universe were to prove unbeautiful, though perhaps that would only confirm the universe has a better sense of humor than I do.