why amator philosophers are more reliable and have more integrety than academic scientists who need to live of their work

[Maartenn100]

This is what Sabine Hossenfelder, a respected physicist within the scientific community, has to say in her video on YouTube:

🔗 https://youtu.be/shFUDPqVmTg?si=not59XTuPYqUDwmu

"Published in 'Foundations of Physics' is nonsense and remains nonsense."

Sabine Hossenfelder:

"This email came from someone I have met a few times but do not know well, who was working at a top institute in the United States at the time. To respect confidentiality, I have removed some details.

*'Hi Sabina, I don’t know if you remember me. I am not using my work email because this topic is sensitive, and I hope our conversation remains confidential. I am reaching out about your recent paper in Nature, which caused quite a stir. First of all, congratulations on a well-written article. If you wanted to attract attention, you certainly succeeded.

However, I would like to ask you to think not only about short-term benefits for yourself next time but also about the broader community. Do you understand what consequences your publication may have for our community? What will all those BSM model builders with their inflated self-image do now? What will happen to the experimental physicists who survive by hiding within large multi-institute collaborations? Can you provide all of them with a decent alternative for work? Some have families and young children. Others are too old to find work elsewhere. For some, academia is the only way to obtain a visa for the U.S.

Yes, if you want to put it that way, we have created a bubble, but that bubble has helped thousands of them and their families survive. We all do the same thing and have our secrets. For example, I am one of the authors of a so-called model—completely useless things, old material with a few new additions and bells and whistles. But if people buy it and it helps them get grants, who cares? The people who fund us have no idea whether elementary particles really exist. They pay us with public funds, not their own money. Essentially, they are paying for something cool, a new hype, something that allows them to justify their expenses in science budgets or, in the case of universities, to attract students.

Your article has caused quite a stir and will likely lead to a redistribution of HEP funds (High-Energy Physics) to other fields. But I doubt you will be able to implement any organizational changes. Also, changes in quality criteria that would reveal the uselessness of someone's work will never be approved.

I realize that what I am writing here may sound harsh—my apologies for that—but this is simply how our society is structured. This problem does not only exist in the HEP community but in all scientific disciplines. My heart breaks every time I see brilliant, independent thinkers leave academia or get pushed out, while obedient idiots remain. But there is nothing we can do about it. Those who leave usually find better opportunities outside academia. Those who stay accept the rules and enjoy the comfortable academic lifestyle. Of course, there are exceptions, like string theorists Smolin and Woit, but I doubt you would want to share their fate."*

I (Sabine) am reading this out to you as a rare example of someone being honest about the situation.

Unlike the person who sent this email, I do not think taxpayers are stupid. We do not pay physicists for a "cool new hype"; we want results. And soon, taxpayers will start asking difficult questions.

An example: It is claimed that the DUNE experiment, built with billions of dollars in public funds at Fermilab, will tell us why we exist or why the universe did not disappear. I must disappoint you: it will tell us no such thing. Regardless of the outcome of the experiment, it will not answer the question of why the universe contains more matter than antimatter. That question cannot be answered within our current theories. The matter-antimatter asymmetry that DUNE is supposedly shedding light on is a pseudo-problem. It is a story that physicists have made up and are now selling to the public because they think that once the money is in, it does not matter whether they deliver what they promised.

To be fair, I think some physicists themselves are confused about what CP violation in the neutrino sector actually says about antimatter.

So, what will the experiment actually do? It will measure some properties of neutrinos. And what is good about that? It ensures that particle physicists keep their jobs. Because some of them have families, and it would be unfair if they had to do something useful for their income, right?

Has anyone even noticed that the U.S. government has spent another $2 billion on a new particle accelerator at Brookhaven? The goal is to improve measurements of quark and gluon distributions in heavy ions. What is that good for? You are not supposed to ask. You just have to believe that you are too dumb to understand why this is useful.

But let me tell you: it is good for maintaining employment in particle physics.

(And now it becomes clear why atheists have issues with philosophers but are fine with current nonsensical science—because the latter gets well-funded, while the former think for themselves without bringing money to the table.)

Meanwhile, the Chinese are laughing their heads off that you think this makes your country worth defending.

The fact that particle physicists have created these bubbles of useless research is not a problem that can be solved from within. The only way to fix it is to cut the funding. And I am afraid that is exactly what is going to happen.

I did not want this to happen. That is why I wrote my commentary in 2017. But at this point, it is too late for them to change anything.

I have read this email dozens of times, and every time, I am shocked by the condescending tone toward all the people who work honestly and whose tax money funds academic jobs. It makes me sick. And it makes me glad that I have nothing to do with this so-called research field anymore, which is rotten from the inside out.

If you are one of the many physicists who know damn well that I am talking about nonsense research but keep your mouth shut... If you are one of those who laugh at me because "no one believes me"... If you are one of those spreading lies about me, like the story that I was invited to speak at CERN but did not dare to go... Did you make that up? I hope you enjoyed it, but Jesus, use your brain.

Your problem is not that I am "making noise." Your problem is that you are lying to the people who pay you. Your problem is that you are a coward without a shred of scientific integrity. Your problem is that every bubble eventually bursts.

This is why I now call it "nonsense research" instead of "research." YouTube marks the latter as profanity, and of course, we do not want to be rude on this channel. That would be terrible.'

This is a summary of what Sabine Hossenfelder says in her video. She is highly critical of the current state of fundamental research in particle physics and argues that much of the funding is wasted on meaningless projects. What do you think of her stance?

Now I understand much better why materialist atheists defend "science" but dismiss philosophers; the latter do not generate money or jobs but seek "truth for truth’s sake," regardless of the amount of employment it creates, sustains, or destroys.

Edited Saturday at 06:32 PM by Maartenn100

[exchemist]

2 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

This is what Sabine Hossenfelder, a respected physicist within the scientific community, has to say in her video on YouTube:

🔗 https://youtu.be/shFUDPqVmTg?si=not59XTuPYqUDwmu

"Published in 'Foundations of Physics' is nonsense and remains nonsense."

Sabine Hossenfelder:

"This email came from someone I have met a few times but do not know well, who was working at a top institute in the United States at the time. To respect confidentiality, I have removed some details.

*'Hi Sabina, I don’t know if you remember me. I am not using my work email because this topic is sensitive, and I hope our conversation remains confidential. I am reaching out about your recent paper in Nature, which caused quite a stir. First of all, congratulations on a well-written article. If you wanted to attract attention, you certainly succeeded.

However, I would like to ask you to think not only about short-term benefits for yourself next time but also about the broader community. Do you understand what consequences your publication may have for our community? What will all those BSM model builders with their inflated self-image do now? What will happen to the experimental physicists who survive by hiding within large multi-institute collaborations? Can you provide all of them with a decent alternative for work? Some have families and young children. Others are too old to find work elsewhere. For some, academia is the only way to obtain a visa for the U.S.

Yes, if you want to put it that way, we have created a bubble, but that bubble has helped thousands of them and their families survive. We all do the same thing and have our secrets. For example, I am one of the authors of a so-called model—completely useless things, old material with a few new additions and bells and whistles. But if people buy it and it helps them get grants, who cares? The people who fund us have no idea whether elementary particles really exist. They pay us with public funds, not their own money. Essentially, they are paying for something cool, a new hype, something that allows them to justify their expenses in science budgets or, in the case of universities, to attract students.

Your article has caused quite a stir and will likely lead to a redistribution of HEP funds (High-Energy Physics) to other fields. But I doubt you will be able to implement any organizational changes. Also, changes in quality criteria that would reveal the uselessness of someone's work will never be approved.

I realize that what I am writing here may sound harsh—my apologies for that—but this is simply how our society is structured. This problem does not only exist in the HEP community but in all scientific disciplines. My heart breaks every time I see brilliant, independent thinkers leave academia or get pushed out, while obedient idiots remain. But there is nothing we can do about it. Those who leave usually find better opportunities outside academia. Those who stay accept the rules and enjoy the comfortable academic lifestyle. Of course, there are exceptions, like string theorists Smolin and Woit, but I doubt you would want to share their fate."*

I (Sabine) am reading this out to you as a rare example of someone being honest about the situation.

Unlike the person who sent this email, I do not think taxpayers are stupid. We do not pay physicists for a "cool new hype"; we want results. And soon, taxpayers will start asking difficult questions.

An example: It is claimed that the DUNE experiment, built with billions of dollars in public funds at Fermilab, will tell us why we exist or why the universe did not disappear. I must disappoint you: it will tell us no such thing. Regardless of the outcome of the experiment, it will not answer the question of why the universe contains more matter than antimatter. That question cannot be answered within our current theories. The matter-antimatter asymmetry that DUNE is supposedly shedding light on is a pseudo-problem. It is a story that physicists have made up and are now selling to the public because they think that once the money is in, it does not matter whether they deliver what they promised.

To be fair, I think some physicists themselves are confused about what CP violation in the neutrino sector actually says about antimatter.

So, what will the experiment actually do? It will measure some properties of neutrinos. And what is good about that? It ensures that particle physicists keep their jobs. Because some of them have families, and it would be unfair if they had to do something useful for their income, right?

Has anyone even noticed that the U.S. government has spent another $2 billion on a new particle accelerator at Brookhaven? The goal is to improve measurements of quark and gluon distributions in heavy ions. What is that good for? You are not supposed to ask. You just have to believe that you are too dumb to understand why this is useful.

But let me tell you: it is good for maintaining employment in particle physics.

(And now it becomes clear why atheists have issues with philosophers but are fine with current nonsensical science—because the latter gets well-funded, while the former think for themselves without bringing money to the table.)

Meanwhile, the Chinese are laughing their heads off that you think this makes your country worth defending.

The fact that particle physicists have created these bubbles of useless research is not a problem that can be solved from within. The only way to fix it is to cut the funding. And I am afraid that is exactly what is going to happen.

I did not want this to happen. That is why I wrote my commentary in 2017. But at this point, it is too late for them to change anything.

I have read this email dozens of times, and every time, I am shocked by the condescending tone toward all the people who work honestly and whose tax money funds academic jobs. It makes me sick. And it makes me glad that I have nothing to do with this so-called research field anymore, which is rotten from the inside out.

If you are one of the many physicists who know damn well that I am talking about nonsense research but keep your mouth shut... If you are one of those who laugh at me because "no one believes me"... If you are one of those spreading lies about me, like the story that I was invited to speak at CERN but did not dare to go... Did you make that up? I hope you enjoyed it, but Jesus, use your brain.

Your problem is not that I am "making noise." Your problem is that you are lying to the people who pay you. Your problem is that you are a coward without a shred of scientific integrity. Your problem is that every bubble eventually bursts.

This is why I now call it "nonsense research" instead of "research." YouTube marks the latter as profanity, and of course, we do not want to be rude on this channel. That would be terrible.'

This is a summary of what Sabine Hossenfelder says in her video. She is highly critical of the current state of fundamental research in particle physics and argues that much of the funding is wasted on meaningless projects. What do you think of her stance?

Now I understand much better why materialist atheists defend "science" but dismiss philosophers; the latter do not generate money or jobs but seek "truth for truth’s sake," regardless of the amount of employment it creates, sustains, or destroys.

Curious non-sequitur in your final sentence. What on earth do “materialist atheists” have to do with the topic? 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Maartenn100 said:

This is a summary of what Sabine Hossenfelder says in her video. She is highly critical of the current state of fundamental research in particle physics and argues that much of the funding is wasted on meaningless projects. What do you think of her stance?

There’s some validity to it, but the reason the US funds e.g. Brookhaven is that it’s a lab in the US, as opposed to e.g. CERN (Europe) or TRIUMF or SNO (Canada) or Super-Kamiokande (Japan)

You can also discuss the breakdown of funding for particle physics vs other areas of physics, but I think there’s no right answer, only wrong ones (which depends on your favorite area of physics)

1 hour ago, Maartenn100 said:

Now I understand much better why materialist atheists defend "science" but dismiss philosophers; the latter do not generate money or jobs but seek "truth for truth’s sake," regardless of the amount of employment it creates, sustains, or destroys.

You’re comparing philosophy and science, which are not competing disciplines. How many fundamental particles has philosophy discovered?

Physics has success in theories that are confirmed and experiments that work. And particle physics is not representative of all physics, despite your extrapolation.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

Now I understand much better why materialist atheists defend "science" but dismiss philosophers; the latter do not generate money or jobs but seek "truth for truth’s sake," regardless of the amount of employment it creates, sustains, or destroys.

Specifically, I see "amator" philosophers as unreliable purely because the ones like you can't understand the science yet seem to want your efforts to be seen on a par with those of degreed scientists who've studied and actually became a "peer" who is able to review the work of others. The fact that you think the philosopher is being dismissed, rather than the explanations they're putting forth, tells me you ignore it when one of your ideas is shown to be false. Ideas are wrong all the time, and that's what scientific methodology is for.