Welcome to Beauty at Work if you're new! We're in between podcast seasons at the moment. While we're recording new episodes, I'll be sharing some key ideas that cut across previous podcast episodes. We also have a couple of new videos coming up soon on the beauty of hospitality. We are in need of more sponsors to help make Season 3 a reality, so please consider supporting us as a paid subscriber if you aren't already, or share the podcast with others who might be interested.
Aesthetic considerations influence and propel scientific inquiry. But how is the beauty of science different from the beauty we encounter in nature? Does beauty play different roles in the formulation of scientific theories and the design of experiments? How do principles of symmetry, simplicity, and elegance guide and motivate scientific discovery, and where might they lead us astray? These questions point to deeper philosophical underpinnings of science that challenge us to recognize it not just as a methodological endeavor but as a humanistic and creative one.
The following short clips from my three of my podcast guests–an astronomer, a biophysicist, and a philosopher of science–address these issues from different perspectives, and uncover similarities and differences in the aesthetic criteria that shape nature, theories, and experiments.
You can watch or listen to the clips below. Check out the show notes to find the full episodes and links to the guests' works. While doing so, please take a moment to subscribe and leave a review, either on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts; it really helps get the word out about our show.
What does it mean to call scientific theories beautiful?
In this short clip, astrophysicist and author Dr. Mario Livio explains what it means to consider a theory in physics beautiful. He explores examples like conservation laws, Maxwell's equations, and Einstein's general relativity, and puts forward three criteria for beauty: (1) symmetry, (2) simplicity, and (3) what he calls the generalized Copernican principle. He also explains why he doesn't think elegance–which people often associate with scientific theories–should count as an additional criterion.
You can find the full episode here on audio or video.
The beauty of symmetry in nature
While symmetry is generally understood as a central aesthetic criterion in theoretical physics, it is not restricted to that field. In this brief clip, Oxford biophysicist Dr. Ard Louis talks about why nature seems to prefer symmetry, and why it therefore matters in biology as well. By likening evolution to randomly typing computer programs, he explains that the likelihood of symmetric shapes emerging in nature is higher due to their shorter descriptions, which make them more readily accessible in the space of algorithms. He also discusses the importance of symmetry-breaking and the role of beauty in theory-choice.
You can find the full episode here on audio or video.
What makes experiments beautiful?
The aesthetic principles underlying beauty in theories or natural phenomena are distinct from those that characterize beauty in scientific experiments. In this clip, Cambridge philosopher Dr. Milena Ivanova discusses her career trajectory into the philosophy of science. She explains how in experiments, beauty transcends visual appeal and has more to do with the ingenuity of design, its fit for purpose, and the experiment's functionality. Intellectual elegance and purposeful design are thus especially important in beautiful experiments such as Foucault's Pendulum.
You can find the full episode here on audio or video.
If you found this post valuable, please share it. Also please consider supporting this project as a paid subscriber to support the costs associated with this work. You'll receive early access to content and exclusive perks for members.