And I suppose given that it was exciting in the 1980s, these are the people in positions of power at the moment.

Tenure has its pluses and minuses. If a string theorist has tenure, they’re going to be string theorizing for a very long time. Sunk cost fallacy plays a role but so does specialization. If you’re leading string theorist and you walk away from string theory, what are you? A mathematician?

If you adjust your priors in response to data and end up walking away from a faulty theory, I think the term is “scientist”. It sounds like the problem from your perspective is they identify themselves as “string theorists” first and “scientists” second.

And yet, “science advances one funeral at a time” probably because scientists are people.

Until now, there hasn’t been any data around string theory whatsoever. It’s been a purely mathematical exercise without even a hint of a possible experiment to test it.

So walking away from string theory years ago, in my mind, would make you a mathematician.

I agree, it’s impossible to completely divorce humans of their biases. One way is to create a system of diversity in rival ideas. So while a scientist is a noun, science should be viewed as a verb. The person may be biased, but the goal is that the process is not. (Still easier said than done).

I didn’t really intend to convey the idea that I thought bias was the major factor. As a practical matter, if you’re an expert in a field and your foundational theories are seriously challenged, it challenges your foundation as an expert.

It’s fun to talk about scientists as these staunch defenders of their theories and say “science advances one funeral at a time” but the reality of the situation is that sometimes scientists are faced with the realization that their entire life’s work is in ruins. It’s hard to imagine a more severe test of character than that. Harder still to imagine how one might pick up the pieces and move on to something else and still be able to contribute to science in a meaningful way.

I can’t stop thinking about one the greatest scientific discoveries in this context.

Kepler was convinced the planetary orbits around the sun were circular and could be described with the five Platonic solids. His theory was testable, and when he measured it against observation, it failed. He could have persisted, modified his theory, and continued on the wrong path, but instead, he discarded his theory and discovered elliptical orbits with his three laws of planetary motion.

Kepler was a scientist.