Deborah Mayo and particle physics

Readers may recall that I've been writing of late about Deborah Mayo, a professor at Virginia Tech.

To restate, Mayo has written Statistical Inference as Severe Testing; a book discussing statistics, induction, and the philosophy of science. Much of the book is obscure to me, though I skim through what I have to in order to get to stuff where I can gain something.

To move forward nonetheless: near the middle of the book she has a discussion of the Higgs boson. Allow me to talk about that today.

Back in 1964 Peter Higgs predicted the eventual discovery of a certain particle that would be responsible for other particles having mass. This became known as the "Higgs boson" or, more grandly as the "God particle"!

Over the following decades the Higgs boson came to be regarded as an important piece of the Standard Model of particle physics, and the fact that no one had experimentally confirmed its existence became something of a scandal.

Then came 2012, and CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, announced that it HAD discovered the Higgs boson after all. Yippee! Except that scientists don't really like completing and confirming models. They like shaking things up, and the existence of a particle that was exactly what Higgs had ordered up soon came to seem too boring to get them all out of bed in the morning.

As Mayo reminds us, the tests at the CERN lab in Switzerland seemed to confirm the existence of the previously hypothetical particle. The discovery inherently involves the construal of statistics, because there are trillions of particle collisions underway, and the existence of a Higgs boson turned on what is signal in all of this, what is background noise.

The publicity declared that the Higgs boson had been discovered by a 5-sigma event. This means that they were looking at data from the Large Hadron Collider that was more than 5 standard deviations away from the mean. That is impressively unlikely to be an accident or, in this case, depressingly unlikely to have occurred in the absence of a Higgs.

In the midst of laying this out, Mayo cites a fellow statistician/philosopher named Dennis Lindley. Right after CERN's announcement, Lindley asked: "Why such an extreme evidence requirement? We know from a Bayesean perspective that this only makes sense if (a) the existence of the Higgs boson has extremely small prior probability and/or (b) the consequences of erroneously announcing its discovery are dire in the extreme."

Five sigma means, to be precise, that only one experiment in 3 million would have seen an apparent signal that strong in the absence of a Higgs boson. If we were confident that only one Packers-Vikings game in 3 million would see a Vikings victory we would never bother watch the game. Why do particle physicists set the bat quite this high?

Mayo's view is that we don't need to invoke Bayesianism for this. Part of the answer is that the positive result (with lesser sigma) might have been triggered by something not exactly a Higgs boson, something Higgs-like. Indeed, even with all five sigma in place with the July 2012 data there were "hints" of an anomaly -- the possibility that it was a Higgs-plus, something that would do more than fill out the standard model, could take particle physics beyond the standard model.

The exciting revolutionary move BSM didn't happen. Mayo's discussion of this line of experimentation ends with a sense of disappointment. "The promising bump or 'resonance'disappeared as more data become available, drowning out the statistical implications." The real news here is not just that Higgs was verified but that the reality of the Higgs-plus boson was falsified. It was the drive to and beyond five sigma that achieved both of those things, though, and Lindsey's query is ... unhelpful for practitioners of the science.

I think I've got that right. At any rate: it is fascinating, is it not?

And I think she is making a point about how the distinction between confirmation on the one hand and falsification on the other is not as clear a cut as one might have been led to think by the old Vienna Circle debates.

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog