One of the largest physics surveys ever finds no one agrees on anything

[C C]

One of the largest physics surveys ever finds no one agrees on anything
https://gizmodo.com/one-of-the-larg...er-finds-no-one-agrees-on-anything-2000758137

EXCERPTS: In a statement yesterday, APS published the results, along with an e-print and an interactive dashboard. [...] "I think the most surprising finding was the gap between the public perception of scientific consensus and what scientists actually said when asked,” Niayesh Afshordi at the University of Waterloo in Canada and the Perimeter Institute, which co-managed the survey with APS, told Gizmodo. “Ideas often presented as the standard view, such as inflation, string theory, particle dark matter, or a constant dark energy, did not command overwhelming support. Inflation barely crossed 50%, while several of the others fell well below a majority.” (MORE - details)
_

 

[exchemist]

One of the largest physics surveys ever finds no one agrees on anything
https://gizmodo.com/one-of-the-larg...er-finds-no-one-agrees-on-anything-2000758137

EXCERPTS: In a statement yesterday, APS published the results, along with an e-print and an interactive dashboard. [...] "I think the most surprising finding was the gap between the public perception of scientific consensus and what scientists actually said when asked,” Niayesh Afshordi at the University of Waterloo in Canada and the Perimeter Institute, which co-managed the survey with APS, told Gizmodo. “Ideas often presented as the standard view, such as inflation, string theory, particle dark matter, or a constant dark energy, did not command overwhelming support. Inflation barely crossed 50%, while several of the others fell well below a majority.” (MORE - details)
_

I find this unremarkable. They picked contentious areas of physics - where observational support is most lacking - and then express surprise at a lack of consensus!

String theory isn't even science, for God's sake, nor are the various interpretations of quantum mechanics. And Dark Matter and Dark Energy are just placeholder terms, not theories.

Also, 20% of the respondents were self-described "science enthusiasts" rather than scentists. That probably means cranks.

 

[James R]

The problem with this survey, if you ask me, is that it asks scientists to commit to one hypothesis or another. But a lot of the questions ask about issues that have not been settled by observational data, experiments and the other tools of science. The result, then, is likely to be based as much on wishful thinking, gut feelings and theory bias as it is on what science can actually say about these matters with confidence.

Why is there no "I don't know. I think we need to wait and see" option in all these questions? Could it be that this would have been the overwhelming response from the scientists, if it had been included?

 

[Pinball1970]

There was a survey on pf regarding the preferred interpretation of QM, a very lack lustre response.
Same with DM and MOND but for different reasons.
QM tented to be along the lines of "it doesn't change anything," and DM/MOND was mainly "Jury is out."

 

[exchemist]

There was a survey on pf regarding the preferred interpretation of QM, a very lack lustre response.
Same with DM and MOND but for different reasons.
QM tented to be along the lines of "it doesn't change anything," and DM/MOND was mainly "Jury is out."

Well in the case of QM that would be the working physicists’ “Shut up and calculate.” response. You would get the same from chemists. For most people QM is a tool they work with every day. They tend not to sit around pondering its various possible philosophical implications when they are preoccupied with, say, the splitting of d orbital degeneracy in a transition metal complex.Pop-sci journalists love these questions of interpretation as they can write gosh-wow pieces about how strange and counter-intuitive it all is, but working scientists mostly just get on with their work.

There is also a commendable trait in science of not indulging in speculation beyond what the observations justify. So I expect you see that inherent caution reflected as well.