Scientific establishments control over human evolution.

[Spyroe Theory]

There are top physicists that have great ideas to progress scientific progress but are held back by the very top. The very top physicists choose to continuously pursue established but old theories mainly to their own benefit. Only when they die off will a whole new generation of physicists take over and pursue new ideas. In other words, the direction and pace of human evolution is controlled by very few people with a personal agenda. 

[StringJunky]

I will invoke Newton: If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. You can't create anything from a vacuum.

[CharonY]

37 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I will invoke Newton: If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. You can't create anything from a vacuum.

Exactly. And it is not like folks are not constantly trying to pursue new ideas. Especially younger scientists starting their own group are expected to go their own directions. It could be true that radical new ideas will have trouble getting funding, as obviously it is difficult to predict whether a new idea will pan out, but if you can break it into chunks and provide evidence that your direction makes sense, you do increase your chances of funding.

In theoretical sciences I am not sure how established scientists could actively prevent you from working on what you want.

[StringJunky]

16 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Exactly. And it is not like folks are not constantly trying to pursue new ideas. Especially younger scientists starting their own group are expected to go their own directions. It could be true that radical new ideas will have trouble getting funding, as obviously it is difficult to predict whether a new idea will pan out, but if you can break it into chunks and provide evidence that your direction makes sense, you do increase your chances of funding.

In theoretical sciences I am not sure how established scientists could actively prevent you from working on what you want.

Perhaps the OP doesn't appreciate that the scientific community encourages an adversarial environment at research level. No one is going to give someone a leg-up to recognition, and apart from that, it is good for the pursuit of scientific fidelity.

Edited December 29, 2021 by StringJunky

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Spyroe Theory said:

There are top physicists that have great ideas to progress scientific progress but are held back by the very top. The very top physicists choose to continuously pursue established but old theories mainly to their own benefit. Only when they die off will a whole new generation of physicists take over and pursue new ideas. In other words, the direction and pace of human evolution is controlled by very few people with a personal agenda. 

So you have made seven posts over three years and all focused on this pet hypothesis of yours?

The thing is matey, our established mainstream theories, have all needed to "run the gauntlet" of scientific critique before they are accepted. Why should your's be any different? If it at all has any validity going for it in the first place. Remember every Mother sees hew own new born as the most beautiful.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Spyroe Theory said:

There are top physicists that have great ideas to progress scientific progress but are held back by the very top. The very top physicists choose to continuously pursue established but old theories mainly to their own benefit. Only when they die off will a whole new generation of physicists take over and pursue new ideas. In other words, the direction and pace of human evolution is controlled by very few people with a personal agenda. 

!

Moderator Note

You may have mistyped the URL. This is not a conspiracy discussion site

 

[Spyroe Theory]

This is not a conspiracy. Watch Lee smolins lecture at the perimeter institute one of the worlds top research lab, he’s a top physicist  and he’s complaining about it. Why, cause he has a good idea for quantum gravity,”loop quantum gravity”. Probably is being ignored by the guys above him. 

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Spyroe Theory said:

This is not a conspiracy. Watch Lee smolins lecture at the perimeter institute one of the worlds top research lab, he’s a top physicist  and he’s complaining about it. Why, cause he has a good idea for quantum gravity,”loop quantum gravity”. Probably is being ignored by the guys above him. 

!

Moderator Note

You’ve offered no evidence. Anecdotes aren’t evidence. “probably” isn’t evidence.

 

[Spyroe Theory]

Swansont. Trust me and watch the video. Lee goes on for a while on the whole concept of quantum mechanics and How the Copenhagen interpretation is the prevailing philosophy in physics.   He’s a realist and thinks the top physiatrist are lunatics. 

Not physiatrist I meant physicist. Bloody autocorrect. 

The lecture is “Einstein’s unfinished revolution”

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, Spyroe Theory said:

There are top physicists that have great ideas to progress scientific progress but are held back by the very top. The very top physicists choose to continuously pursue established but old theories mainly to their own benefit. Only when they die off will a whole new generation of physicists take over and pursue new ideas. In other words, the direction and pace of human evolution is controlled by very few people with a personal agenda. 

So, what else is new? The established elite in any field became the established elite in their field by having notable ideas and making notable progress. The next stage in the development of that discipline will come from the brightest and most ambitious of their students, who will then become the established elite of their generation.  Part of the role of elders is to keep the exuberance of the young in check; to require new work to pass close scrutiny and meet a standard that had been set by their predecessors. When/if their ideas become obsolete or are proven to be flawed, new ideas will be established as the new norm in that field.

Last i heard, evolution didn't have a predetermined "direction" and there is no way physicists could control human evolution. Biologists, maybe.... 

[Spyroe Theory]

Peterkin. The top dogs do not allow good ideas to take over their own ideas. You may want to live in a reality that is just and fair but it’s not as u say here. And here you say the elders keep the young one in check. Exactly. The elders make sure the young ones only make progress in the elders theories and not their own new radical ideas no matter how good the ideas are. Again I’m going to say trust me, I know, I saw. Another point to make here is that physicists claim to have revealed nature as it is with their theories but the truth is they have figured out how to expose nature in one of the many ways it can reveal itself. So long as their sponsors make money from the theories technologies than why change anything. Why look for something better if what you have is working, unless the better idea is from the same group in charge, of course. 

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, Spyroe Theory said:

Again I’m going to say trust me,

Why? Because you are some anonymous stranger on the internet making unsupported claims? Thanks, but I'm holding out for something better.

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, Spyroe Theory said:

The top dogs

Who are these, exactly? Do you have a list?

2 hours ago, Spyroe Theory said:

do not allow good ideas to take over their own ideas

Which "good ideas" are attempting to "take over" which old ideas? What does "take over" mean in this context? Colonize? Appropriate? Develop further?

2 hours ago, Spyroe Theory said:

Again I’m going to say trust me

Oddly enough, I am reluctant to do so.

2 hours ago, Spyroe Theory said:

Another point to make here is that physicists claim to have revealed nature as it is with their theories but the truth is they have figured out how to expose nature in one of the many ways it can reveal itself.

Are those those two opposing ideas? Physicists both prod Nature to give up its secrets and take advantage of opportune moments of exposure. All scientists do: they are spies, sleuths, provocateurs and voyeurs. 

 

2 hours ago, Spyroe Theory said:

So long as their sponsors make money from the theories technologies than why change anything.

It seems to me, those scientists* who promote technology for gain or patriotism or public honours change all kinds of things. Sometimes - though not usually - for the better, as it affects the polity in general.

 

2 hours ago, Spyroe Theory said:

Why look for something better if what you have is working, unless the better idea is from the same group in charge, of course. 

What, in this sphere, do you mean by "better"? Better than what for whom? To what end? In what system of values.

 

[exchemist]

8 hours ago, Spyroe Theory said:

Swansont. Trust me and watch the video. Lee goes on for a while on the whole concept of quantum mechanics and How the Copenhagen interpretation is the prevailing philosophy in physics.   He’s a realist and thinks the top physiatrist are lunatics. 

Not physiatrist I meant physicist. Bloody autocorrect. 

The lecture is “Einstein’s unfinished revolution”

Freudian slip? 😊

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Spyroe Theory said:

Swansont. Trust me and watch the video.

1. You haven’t provided a video 

2. People have to be able to participate without watching videos, per rule 2.7

3. It’s still anecdotal, at best

 

11 hours ago, Spyroe Theory said:

Lee goes on for a while on the whole concept of quantum mechanics and How the Copenhagen interpretation is the prevailing philosophy in physics.   He’s a realist and thinks the top physiatrist are lunatics. 

“he thinks” is opinion, not fact. The Copenhagen interpretation is, as you say, philosophy, not physics. Or even physiatry.

11 hours ago, Spyroe Theory said:

Again I’m going to say trust me, I know, I saw.

Where did you see this? A video? The notion that you are part of the physics community such that you could “see” this is fanciful.

[TheVat]

12 hours ago, Spyroe Theory said:

This is not a conspiracy. Watch Lee smolins lecture at the perimeter institute one of the worlds top research lab, he’s a top physicist  and he’s complaining about it. Why, cause he has a good idea for quantum gravity,”loop quantum gravity”. Probably is being ignored by the guys above him. 

LQG is hardly being ignored.  Dozens of research groups, led by prominent physicists like Carlo Rovelli, are working on it.  It is very far from being ignored or suppressed.  

[joigus]

From 19.45 to 22.04:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-L690pQhuo

Here's a transcription of what Smolin says,

Quote

Now, does this matter?*

And that’s something I want everybody to reflect on, because as is said many different ways in many different venues, this is a hard, weird, puzzling period, and among the things that we’re concerned about, some of us anyway, are concerned about, is that there seem to be a lot of people out there in the world who are gaining, or interested in gaining power who don’t believe in rationality, in evidence, and so forth. And it’s very easy, however, to go into a political mode, and for me to sit in my elevator… what is it, ivory tower and critisize people with different political points of views and agendas. So I’m gonna critizice some people with my… who tend to lean the same way I lean, because it’s not just the right vs left.

These are people connected… This is about 15 years ago people connected with a philosophy called post-modernism.

A simple criteria for science to qualify as post-modern is that it be free from any dependence on the concept of objective truth. Let that sink in. They think that’s good. By these criteria, for example, the complementarity interpretation of quantum physics due to Niels Bohr and the Copenhagen school is seen as post-modern.

--Madsen and Madsen

So Niels Bohr was one of these people who’s a great personality, a great mentor, a great teacher, and he was given for his talented achievements an institute in Copenhagen. That we aspire… was much bigger than our institute here, but if we make 1 percent of the contribution they made, we’ll see Perimeter as a success. And he brought all the great minds of Europe thinking about quantum mechanics, either as students or as postdocs, or as visitors to his institute, and the view which was attributed to them, which came out of that institute and the people there, we call the Copenhagen view or the Copenhagen interpretation.

And again, it would be wonderful if some day there’s a Waterloo, or a Perimeter interpretation of something, but we hope it’s the next theory, cause this theory we’re trying to get.

And the other one...

Radical critiques of science that seek to escape the constraints of deterministic dialectics must also give over narrowly conceived debates about realism and truth to investigate what kind of realities –political realities-- might be engendered by a dialogical boot-strapping. Within a dialogically agitated environment, debates about reality become, in practical terms, irrelevant. “Reality,” finally, is a historical construct.

--Markley

So maybe it does matter that our basic fundamental scientific theory that everything else builds off of is imbued with the same philosophy and spirit. At least, I worry about that.

 

*Does it matter that we let go of the attempt to pursue a concept of objective reality/objective truth. It's clear that's what Smolin is talking about if you rewind the video 30 seconds or so from where I've transcribed.

It's very clear to me that Smolin is concerned that giving up on a concept of objective reality, when wielded by political minds, can turn into an excuse for 'everything goes'.

It's nothing to do with elite scientists thwarting young, creative scientists when/if they're trying to push their ideas forward.

[mistermack]

On 12/29/2021 at 3:14 AM, Spyroe Theory said:

Peterkin. The top dogs do not allow good ideas to take over their own ideas. You may want to live in a reality that is just and fair but it’s not as u say here. And here you say the elders keep the young one in check. Exactly. The elders make sure the young ones only make progress in the elders theories and not their own new radical ideas no matter how good the ideas are.

Not true. Smart bosses will keep an eye on their juniors, and hopefully get the credit if they come up with something. Jocelyn Bell Burnell discovered pulsars, in spite of initial disinterest by her seniors. Her boss later accepted the Nobel Prize for the discovery. And wiki says this : 

"In a 2020 lecture at Harvard, she related how the media was covering the discovery pulsars, with interviews taking a standard "disgusting" format: Hewish would be asked on the astrophysics, and she would be the "human interest" part, asked about vital statistics, how many boyfriends she had, what colour is her hair, and asked to undo some buttons for the photographs.^[31] "

[beecee]

39 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Not true. Smart bosses will keep an eye on their juniors, and hopefully get the credit if they come up with something. Jocelyn Bell Burnell discovered pulsars, in spite of initial disinterest by her seniors. Her boss later accepted the Nobel Prize for the discovery. And wiki says this : 

"In a 2020 lecture at Harvard, she related how the media was covering the discovery pulsars, with interviews taking a standard "disgusting" format: Hewish would be asked on the astrophysics, and she would be the "human interest" part, asked about vital statistics, how many boyfriends she had, what colour is her hair, and asked to undo some buttons for the photographs.^[31] "

yes, WIKI also says....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jocelyn_Bell_Burnell "The paper announcing the discovery of pulsars had five authors. Bell's thesis supervisor Antony Hewish^[5][6] was listed first, Bell second. Hewish was awarded the Nobel Prize, along with the astronomer Martin Ryle. At the time fellow astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle criticised Bell's omission."

then went on to say.....

 

"In 1977, Bell Burnell commented, "I believe it would demean Nobel Prizes if they were awarded to research students, except in very exceptional cases, and I do not believe this is one of them."

"Finally, I am not myself upset about it – after all, I am in good company, am I not"

^15] The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, in its press release announcing the prize,^[16] cited Ryle and Hewish for their pioneering work in radio-astrophysics, with particular mention of Ryle's work on aperture-synthesis technique and Hewish's decisive role in the discovery of pulsars.

Bell Burnell was president of the Royal Astronomical Society from 2002 to 2004, president of the Institute of Physics from October 2008 until October 2010, and interim president of the Institute following the death of her successor, Marshall Stoneham, in early 2011.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

I would though still have to agree with Fred Hoyle's criticism. Jocylin Bell is still with us and now aged 78.

 

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

yes, WIKI also says....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jocelyn_Bell_Burnell "The paper announcing the discovery of pulsars had five authors. Bell's thesis supervisor Antony Hewish^[5][6] was listed first, Bell second. Hewish was awarded the Nobel Prize, along with the astronomer Martin Ryle. At the time fellow astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle criticised Bell's omission."

then went on to say.....

 

"In 1977, Bell Burnell commented, "I believe it would demean Nobel Prizes if they were awarded to research students, except in very exceptional cases, and I do not believe this is one of them."

"Finally, I am not myself upset about it – after all, I am in good company, am I not"

^15] The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, in its press release announcing the prize,^[16] cited Ryle and Hewish for their pioneering work in radio-astrophysics, with particular mention of Ryle's work on aperture-synthesis technique and Hewish's decisive role in the discovery of pulsars.

Bell Burnell was president of the Royal Astronomical Society from 2002 to 2004, president of the Institute of Physics from October 2008 until October 2010, and interim president of the Institute following the death of her successor, Marshall Stoneham, in early 2011.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

I would though still have to agree with Fred Hoyle's criticism. Jocylin Bell is still with us and now aged 78.

 

Times of course were far different then, and generally a woman's job was to remain in the ktchen, "bare foot and pregnant" Still after Madam Curie and her two Nobels, plus Irene her daughter also sharing one in 1935, one would have though that science of all disciplines would have "seen the light" so to speak. 

As an aside, imho Madam Curie and her Husband Pierre Curie epitomise the scientific discipline/s, for their total dedication, hard back breaking work and devotion. All amply illustrated in a great movie, made in 1943, and starring Greer Garson and Walter Pidgeon. 

[Ken Fabian]

On 12/29/2021 at 10:40 AM, Spyroe Theory said:

There are top physicists that have great ideas to progress scientific progress but are held back by the very top. The very top physicists choose to continuously pursue established but old theories mainly to their own benefit. Only when they die off will a whole new generation of physicists take over and pursue new ideas. In other words, the direction and pace of human evolution is controlled by very few people with a personal agenda. 

What top physicists? What great ideas? Human "evolution" is biology although I expect colloquial English can apply it loosely enough to encompass evolution of knowledge (including physics).

Any physicist who has something worth publishing will be able to do so - or else bring it into the public domain and be in a position to promote and defend it. Lots of crackpot and occasionally a sound idea gets attention outside of peer review publication and institutions that do science; it rarely takes other top level scientists to identify the crackpots but the sound ideas DO get noticed, often getting the support and backing of "established" scientists - claims otherwise being scurrilous (and mostly by the crackpots who don't take to their mistakes being corrected). 

Evidence of a scientist's ability to publish and promote and discuss being suppressed would attract attention - science is built around documentation that is widely disseminated. So far no evidence has been presented.