Changing methodologies in solar physics
I have always been interested in the idea that there is "method'' in science. Are there quantifiable relationships between certain methods in the solar physics backwaters, and measures of success? I began some work in 2017 having secured funding for a graduate in philosophy to come to HAO to work with me on this problem but abandoned it because she went into politics. Here I report a study of 650 PhD theses published since World War II using classification and rank statistical tests of distributions. While necessarily subjective and clearly not representative of worldwide activities, there are nevertheless intriguing trends pointing to a need for a larger, perhaps AI-based study, of the 100,000+ publications on solar physics during this era. I believe the statistical methods are robust and the samples well defined and representative of changes since WWII.
"Knowledge only progresses by making mistakes as fast as possible" - attr. John Archibald Wheeler
Philip Judge began his higher education in physics and choral music as an undergraduate of Magdalen College of Oxford University in 1978. He was awarded a B.A. in physics in 1981 and, in 1985, a D. Phil. degree. Since 1991, he has worked as a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. Driven to mentor and learn from young scientists, his research papers have a strong pedagogical slant. Often they raise more questions than answers. His 2020 book, "The Sun" in the "Very Short Introduction" series from Oxford University Press, has been well received by interested lay-persons and professionals alike. Philip has enjoyed many sabbaticals and visits in universities across the globe, privileged to work with many students and staff. Currently he is in the final stages of writing a new book on the foundations of spectroscopy for physics students.