Monday, September 25, 2006
insert expletive here
I found a link (from Not Even Wrong) to this HIDEOUS article:
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/articles/061002crat_atlarge
This article is beyond hideous. "Not a single new testable prediction has been made" [from string theory]? "This theory will come in such a bewildering number of versions that it will be of no practical use: a Theory of Nothing"?
Okay, tell us something that the idiots HAVEN'T (erroneously) told us already!
First of all, does a theory HAVE to make testable predictions? Absolutely not. Don't look surprised; there are quite a few physicists who are developing theories of wormholes, or white holes, or other cosmological oddities. Can we test the existence of wormholes? Can we prove that there are white holes? Not currently. Yet that doesn't mean that the work of cosmologists is garbage. Just because we can't prove their existence doesn't mean they're not there, or that those theories aren't plausible.
Think of the physicists who work with theories of time travel. Or who theorize the existence of tachyons (faster-than-light particles) or preons (particles inside electrons). Now for a more mainstream question: What about the Higgs boson? We may find it when the LHC becomes operational, but... we may not. If we don't find it, does that mean that Peter Higgs wasted his time? No. It means that we just haven't found it yet.
All this nonsense about untestability is EXTREMELY annoying. The untestability stigma has been put on all sorts of theories now. Multiverses, M-theory... some people would argue the anthropic principle. I do not for a minute think that the argument of untestability should be thrown around by scientifically-illiterate people. I don't think that string theory is the downfall of modern physics. I don't think that LQG, Dr. Woit, or even the Bogdanoffs are the downfalls of modern physics, either. The "trouble with physics" is that morons are criticizing it. These are morons who refuse to think, who just want to ignite controversy.
A lot of people want to discredit or berate the intelligent. They do this out of jealousy. I'm not saying that all the bad science journalists are jealous, or that jealousy is obvious in their articles. But it's very likely. If you're jealous of someone, don't you want to bring them down? Why are smart people more likely to get bullied than others? Jealousy. Bullies don't like to feel inferior.
The scientifically illiterate are quite similar. They have physics envy, and they're doing everything in their power to attack whatever they feel they can attack... and get away with. I feel bad for the good science journalists who have to put up with these morons.
Of course, the authors of "Manifold Destiny" didn't get away with it :) (But that's more of a math article.) ¶ 11:08 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/articles/061002crat_atlarge
This article is beyond hideous. "Not a single new testable prediction has been made" [from string theory]? "This theory will come in such a bewildering number of versions that it will be of no practical use: a Theory of Nothing"?
Okay, tell us something that the idiots HAVEN'T (erroneously) told us already!
First of all, does a theory HAVE to make testable predictions? Absolutely not. Don't look surprised; there are quite a few physicists who are developing theories of wormholes, or white holes, or other cosmological oddities. Can we test the existence of wormholes? Can we prove that there are white holes? Not currently. Yet that doesn't mean that the work of cosmologists is garbage. Just because we can't prove their existence doesn't mean they're not there, or that those theories aren't plausible.
Think of the physicists who work with theories of time travel. Or who theorize the existence of tachyons (faster-than-light particles) or preons (particles inside electrons). Now for a more mainstream question: What about the Higgs boson? We may find it when the LHC becomes operational, but... we may not. If we don't find it, does that mean that Peter Higgs wasted his time? No. It means that we just haven't found it yet.
All this nonsense about untestability is EXTREMELY annoying. The untestability stigma has been put on all sorts of theories now. Multiverses, M-theory... some people would argue the anthropic principle. I do not for a minute think that the argument of untestability should be thrown around by scientifically-illiterate people. I don't think that string theory is the downfall of modern physics. I don't think that LQG, Dr. Woit, or even the Bogdanoffs are the downfalls of modern physics, either. The "trouble with physics" is that morons are criticizing it. These are morons who refuse to think, who just want to ignite controversy.
A lot of people want to discredit or berate the intelligent. They do this out of jealousy. I'm not saying that all the bad science journalists are jealous, or that jealousy is obvious in their articles. But it's very likely. If you're jealous of someone, don't you want to bring them down? Why are smart people more likely to get bullied than others? Jealousy. Bullies don't like to feel inferior.
The scientifically illiterate are quite similar. They have physics envy, and they're doing everything in their power to attack whatever they feel they can attack... and get away with. I feel bad for the good science journalists who have to put up with these morons.
Of course, the authors of "Manifold Destiny" didn't get away with it :) (But that's more of a math article.) ¶ 11:08 PM
Comments:
<< Home
As you may know from what transpired during the recent invasion of my blog, I personally feel that I have very good reason to believe that those theories aren't necessary, for the reasons that I've been giving on my blog. Otherwise, I would be so sure nor supportive of the idea that theoretical physics is on a road to collapse.
It appears to me that the unwillingness of physicists to look back, even when I show them exactly what they've missed, means that this must happen as a part of the natural process in order to open people's eyes to stuff that they otherwise absolutely refuse to even entertain, no matter how convincing the physics. I think that the recent events at my blog clearly proves this.
Unless you've got a better idea?
And I'm sorry a. quinn, if I've fallen from your grace.
It appears to me that the unwillingness of physicists to look back, even when I show them exactly what they've missed, means that this must happen as a part of the natural process in order to open people's eyes to stuff that they otherwise absolutely refuse to even entertain, no matter how convincing the physics. I think that the recent events at my blog clearly proves this.
Unless you've got a better idea?
And I'm sorry a. quinn, if I've fallen from your grace.
While I agree that not all of the theories are necessary, it's difficult to tell which aren't. More precisely, it's difficult to tell how useful a theory is. A theory could be elegant to some and ugly to others. Just because it's elegant (or ugly) doesn't mean it's right. Just because it's popular (or unpopular, or just not well-known) doesn't mean it's right (or wrong, or not even wrong.)
I noticed how your most recent blog postings have been invaded with 15-20 comments, and how you've deleted quite a few of them. I don't know if their comments prove your point, though, considering that a lot of the commenters are anonymous.
I don't think that theoretical physics is on the road to collapse, because the debates over string theory have been going on since the 80's, and the arguments (on both sides) really haven't changed much. What has changed, however, is the amount of publicity these debates get. Most of the hype over "The Trouble with Physics" started last month or so, although it was reviewed here http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/10/lee-smolin-trouble-with-physics-review.html back in October 2004. With the increasing popularity of physics blogs, the amount of bad scientific journalism has also increased. All that's changed is the amount of exposure that the debates get. Physics really isn't any worse-off now than it was two or even twenty years ago. Of course, I'm not saying it's made a lot of progress, either.
I noticed how your most recent blog postings have been invaded with 15-20 comments, and how you've deleted quite a few of them. I don't know if their comments prove your point, though, considering that a lot of the commenters are anonymous.
I don't think that theoretical physics is on the road to collapse, because the debates over string theory have been going on since the 80's, and the arguments (on both sides) really haven't changed much. What has changed, however, is the amount of publicity these debates get. Most of the hype over "The Trouble with Physics" started last month or so, although it was reviewed here http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/10/lee-smolin-trouble-with-physics-review.html back in October 2004. With the increasing popularity of physics blogs, the amount of bad scientific journalism has also increased. All that's changed is the amount of exposure that the debates get. Physics really isn't any worse-off now than it was two or even twenty years ago. Of course, I'm not saying it's made a lot of progress, either.
I noticed how your most recent blog postings have been invaded with 15-20 comments, and how you've deleted quite a few of them.
Uh... this is absolutely NOT true, a. quinn. What would make you say this?
Uh... this is absolutely NOT true, a. quinn. What would make you say this?
This post http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/2006/09/biocentric-structuring.html had two deleted comments, and there were a few other recent posts with deleted comments as well. I wasn't referring to the most recent ones from this week, but the aforementioned post was the first one to really get invaded.
Nope, I've never deleted one single post by anyone other than myself.
What you saw in that first article, was me commenting about how I had responded prior to Neil deleting his own post and then replacing it with an edited version that came up after mine.
I then deleted my own post and then resubmitted it, so that my reply would come up in proper sequence with his, so if you've ever seen a post deleted from my blog, then it was the author that was doing it.
I'm as honest as the get, a. quinn, and that's what I first liked about you.
Don't let our difference blow it, because I am on the side of science too. As long as scientist"s" refuse to recognize that the near perfecly balanced structure of the universe is that way because it was a near-realized *goal*, then the only answer is complete collaplse of the system.
Read my latest entry to my blog... Paul Davies is right, I know why, and this is fully supported by every post under it, and they "anonymous person that I was talking to, was a PhD that refused to address the physics, choosing to attack me personally for perceived injustice.
The perceived injustice of someone that supports every other liberal cause, that is...
... pre-warped!!!
What you saw in that first article, was me commenting about how I had responded prior to Neil deleting his own post and then replacing it with an edited version that came up after mine.
I then deleted my own post and then resubmitted it, so that my reply would come up in proper sequence with his, so if you've ever seen a post deleted from my blog, then it was the author that was doing it.
I'm as honest as the get, a. quinn, and that's what I first liked about you.
Don't let our difference blow it, because I am on the side of science too. As long as scientist"s" refuse to recognize that the near perfecly balanced structure of the universe is that way because it was a near-realized *goal*, then the only answer is complete collaplse of the system.
Read my latest entry to my blog... Paul Davies is right, I know why, and this is fully supported by every post under it, and they "anonymous person that I was talking to, was a PhD that refused to address the physics, choosing to attack me personally for perceived injustice.
The perceived injustice of someone that supports every other liberal cause, that is...
... pre-warped!!!
Hey, I was able to remove my attack on string theory from my previous to last post about Lee Smolin by renaming it to be something more appropriate to Dr. Anon's reccommendation to me... since Lee's points are right on par with my conversation with "anon", and his advice to me to get my PhD in order to be taken seriously.
Post a Comment
<< Home
