BenTheMan Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 Here are two blog postings. One of them is good, one of them is rubbish. You can decide how I feel I will choose my words carefully in what follows... Either way, in talking with people who...think that...all of physics since Einstein is wrong, I have noticed a very disturbing trend. Specifically, these...people...seem to worship Einstein. This attitude is very...ridiculous---Einstein was a great scientist, but he was no smarter than any of the other scientists in the 20th century who revolutionized physics. The first article starts with this contention, that physics is desparately searching for a new Einstein, which is simply not true. http://grenouille-bouillie.blogspot.com/2007/09/shrug-of-resignation-in-physics.html The second article is a very well-written response to these ideas: http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/bad-physicists-and-populism.html Enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igosaur Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 I think that if there is a successor to Einstein then it must be Ed Witten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 The first blog has some gems: A simple one is that the physics community looks down on outsiders, notably outsiders who pretend doing physics. A particular manifestation of this is ignoring e-mails. Dear Dr Smolin, if you want to locate the next Einstein, why don't you begin by answering e-mails sent by no-names like myself ... Dr. Smolin's email address is publicly available. This means he gets several hundred messages per day offering to fix his credit rating, to fix his libido, to fix various shortcomings, and to fix the problems with physics. Guess how many of these messages he sees? If Ed Witten came to me saying "I have this great idea for a new piece of software", it is quite likely that the idea might be good even if he probably doesn't know crap about C++ template metaprogramming, compiler implementation for coroutines, or Itanium speculative loads (which are the kind of technical topics I do need to master in my work). Bad analogy. While programmers implement a new piece of software, the idea for this software often does come from the outside. A much better analogy would be if Ed Witten (assuming he knows jack about the technical details of software development) told a programmer to implement a database using the "Boolean anti-binary least squares approach" (kudos Scott Adams) without having the foggiest idea how a database works or is constructed. All in all, a very nice piece of crac...err...alternative science. The second blog has its faults, too. The author definitely has something against Smolin. However, some bad physicists have a vested interest for these myths to spread. Some of these laymen - including Lee Smolin - have a completely religious attitude to Albert Einstein's name. In other words, Einstein was the exact mirror image of the people who like to use Einstein's name for populist purposes, e.g. Lee Smolin. Smolin dislikes established results of science, he doesn't understand them, he hates mathematics and the concept of mathematical beauty, and 90+ percent of his papers are pure junk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 The one thing that struck me is the notion that "anyone can come up with an idea for a computer program, despite not knowing programming" is a reasonable analogy to coming up with a scientific theory. (edit: Heh. I did start writing this before D H's post) I find it ironic that you have psychoceramics with the view that everything Einstein did is gold and must be used as-is; he was never wrong and nobody else could ever add to his body of work. Then you have the ones that accuse mainstream scientists of clinging to relativity because they worship Einstein, and there's a conspiracy to suppress anything that would disprove it (like their "theory") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenTheMan Posted September 13, 2007 Author Share Posted September 13, 2007 The second blog has its faults, too. The author definitely has something against Smolin. Heh, yeah, Lubos thinks that all other non-stringy QG approaches are wrong or trivial. He's extremely intelligent---the rumor is that he was posting (good) stuff to the arxiv when he was in high school. He is probably the least diplomatic of all scientists to the Smolin crowd, but he makes points that are difficult to argue. I find it ironic that you have psychoceramics with the view that everything Einstein did is gold and must be used as-is; he was never wrong and nobody else could ever add to his body of work. Then you have the ones that accuse mainstream scientists of clinging to relativity because they worship Einstein, and there's a conspiracy to suppress anything that would disprove it (like their "theory") Yeah, me too. Especially since Einstein was more or less not doing physics for the last thirty or so years of his life. He was looking for a way to interpret everything in terms of geometry, and never quite got there. It turned out that he was just wrong---for example, he never even addressed Fermi's theory, as far as I know. (Don't take my word at this, though.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 You know something, I don't know why the general public views Einstein as some sort of god-like character. While I do consider him a great scientist, he is, after all, only human, and at various times in his life made some pretty big mistakes and was wrong about many things (such as refusing to believe in some aspects of quantum mechanics). There are quite a few scientists that are just as good as he was, some even better. And yet, the general public continues to regard him as a synonym for "smart" or "genius" or something similar. It isn't restricted to the general public, in many academic circles he is also perceived as a god-like entity. For example, Temple Grandin, who is an associate professor (and an architect who designs slaughterhouses...) for those of you who never heard of her, makes a bunch ridiculous claims about him (e.g. autism, etc.), based entirely on anecdotes and opinions, and then portrays her claims as truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 I find it ironic that you have psychoceramics with the view that everything Einstein did is gold and must be used as-is; he was never wrong and nobody else could ever add to his body of work. Then you have the ones that accuse mainstream scientists of clinging to relativity because they worship Einstein, and there's a conspiracy to suppress anything that would disprove it (like their "theory") Some do both: They crack some pots ...oops... propose alternate hypotheses that purport to disprove relativity at the same time they praise Einstein as the only true genius. The pyschoceramics aim highest in a very vain and very fruitless attempt to prove that they are smarter than their gods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenTheMan Posted September 13, 2007 Author Share Posted September 13, 2007 There are quite a few scientists that are just as good as he was, some even better. This is an excellent point. Take Richard Feynmann, for example. I have heard that he regularly didn't do that well on IQ tests (mid 120's was the number I heard). Yet, he completely revolutionized the way that physics was done in the 20th century, and his theory of QED is tested EVEN MORE ACCURATELY than general relativity. Plus, he could pull more chicks than Einstein any day of the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losfomot Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 The programmer's ideas are based on several basic myths about the very meaning of science in general and theoretical physics in particular: 1. The goal of science is to wait for a "new Einstein" or a savior 2. The job of scientists is to search for a "new Einstein" or a savior 3. It is possible to divide scientists to Einsteins and non-Einsteins 4. The main tool of science is to search for random sentences written by random people, waiting for one sentence that will revolutionize science 5. It is comparably likely for an outsider to find such a holy grail of physics as it is for an esteemed scientist; more generally, intelligence doesn't matter when it comes to cracking the secrets of the Universe 6. Peer review is always a bad thing 7. Societal pressures help scientists or science to make a scientific revolution; it is possible to social-engineer a new revolution in science 8. Interpretation of quantum mechanics is an unsolved problem that waits for a savior 9. More generally, what physicists are waiting for has something to do with Lee Smolin's proclamations in books and newspapers 10. Laymen have a good idea what scientists think, what principles they find reliable, and why they do so I think these statements about the first article are a twisted exaggeration. More generally about the OP... People need someone to look up to... why not Einstein? Why get defensive about people that look up to him? He is a marker of a time when the universe became that much more understandable. It is not (generally) HIM as a super-physicist that people revere... it is more him as a symbol. Einstein opened up a new world of physics, but if he hadn't done it, someone else would have. When people say things like 'where's the next Einstein?' they really mean, 'where's the next major turning point in our understanding of the universe?' Einstein was a doorman... he opened a bunch of doors for us all at once. Science is opening a door here and there in some places, peeking through some keyholes in others, trying to fashion keys and lockpicks. The world is waiting for the next doorman to come along and open another bunch of doors. Inevitably it will happen, and the person that does it will be the next big thing to Einstein. It could be some little thing that any physicist could have and would have stumbled upon eventually, but because BenTheMan stumbled on it, and because he's a pretty smart guy in general, it is his name that will go down in the history (and physics) books, it is him that will be famously quoted for statements (even ones that have nothing to do with physics), and it will be his name that people will use when waiting for the next big turning point in physics... 'where's the next BenTheMan?' ... there will be some people on some future science forums that ask 'why do people worship BenTheMan? I mean, don't get me wrong, he was a smart guy, but was he the smartest physicist ever to live? I don't think so.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenTheMan Posted September 13, 2007 Author Share Posted September 13, 2007 Einstein was a doorman... There have been plenty of doormen, certianly. But for some reason, the attitude of many people (even some who post here) is that Einstein can do NO wrong. This is inherintly unscientific. because BenTheMan stumbled on it, and because he's a pretty smart guy in general, it is his name that will go down in the history (and physics) books Sorry:) If Einstein's the doorman, I'm the guy in the kitchen washing dishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 I think these statements about the first article are a twisted exaggeration. They weren't statements about the first article, per se, they were about the myths the first article appeared to draw upon. "The programmer's ideas are based on several basic myths about the very meaning of science in general and theoretical physics in particular" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 also I konw for a fac lee smolin does answer his email, he just filters it like everyone else. I have a friend at hampshire college (the school smolin graduated from) and he emailed smolin to ask what he thought of his time there and if he had any recommendations as to what kind of courses he should take if he wanted to become a theoretical physicist. Smolin sent a full page and a half back to him with advise about the school and courseload. (it should be noted that hampshire is a highly non-traditional school, so alot can be gleaned from a quick set of emails with a graduate) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredrik Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 Another apparent trend is the popularity to identify the crackpots. By exclaiming someone else as crackpot, it supposedly makes yourself look better. The interesting things is that as it seems even those who one would suppose ought be able to make themselves look good by their ideas only, also find this attractive enough to be worth the time Even if I would have opinions on someone else, I would not feel better by making them down. Nor do I think it would make me better. Normal criticts and discussions are healthy, but sometimes you see supposed educated people calling other people stupid or other things, for at least to me - no good reason. There are certainly pretty "clear cases" of "crackpotting", but what is the point in bringing those obvious cases to attenation, where I suppose only people get annoying and take offense? Let them pot on, if that makes them happy /Fredrik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 There are certainly pretty "clear cases" of "crackpotting", but what is the point in bringing those obvious cases to attenation, where I suppose only people get annoying and take offense? Let them pot on, if that makes them happy /Fredrik Because they're not 'clear cases' to people who have little or no scientific knowledge. I really don't think bringing attention to crackpottery, is a means to make somebody who does have a solid grounding in science, look better. Ideas that smear the 'field' of science, should be dealt with...if somebody can't be arsed to get a formal education, and learn to do science properly, then they have no business presenting their ideas as science, it's as simple as that. If so-called 'crackpots' listened to reason, and modified their ideas given new evidence, data et.c there wouldn't be a problem...but they wouldn't be 'crackpots' if that was the case. This isn't a statement aimed at anybody in particular, it's a general rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredrik Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 So it's about protecting students and those who can not distinguish a crackpot from a non-crackpot on their own? Hmm /Fredrik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 Well I think so, information, especially in today's environment can spread rapidly...this is an important point to note. If crackpottery, and pseudoscience isn't brought to attention, it can have rather grave consequences. It's apparent in 'all' fields of science, from medicine, to geology...surely giving people tested, evidence based, quality information, is wholly beneficial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredrik Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 Ok, that sort of makes sense. But in addition, for various reasons I like to think a good idea is to force them to learn the students critical thinking rather them protect them from reality. What are we protecting them from? Their own stupidity or the fact that reality is complex and hard to interpret? But then, how can they learn? I am ultimately on my own, and I have to make my own choices what to believe and what to pursue. I clearly learn from others, and have faith in others, but that is ultimately also my choice and my responsibility. /Fredrik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 Ok, that sort of makes sense. But in addition, for various reasons I like to think a good idea is to force them to learn the students critical thinking rather them protect them from reality. /Fredrik Well yeah, but you need to be qualified, or at least except scrutiny, before you can start thinking critically about certain ideas in science. Clearly there's no harm in pondering, or approaching certain principles / theories from a different angle...but it shouldn't be dressed as 'fact', or science, if it hasn't gone through the same rigourous procedures as any other proposal, or hypothesis. Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by 'protecting them from reality.' It's when ideas escape into the public domain, dressed as fact, that the problems start. Sorry to BenTheMan, if this has gone off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredrik Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 Not that this debate is that terribly important to get lenghty about, but some additional comments... Well yeah, but you need to be qualified, or at least except scrutiny, before you can start thinking critically about certain ideas in science. Clearly there's no harm in pondering, or approaching certain principles / theories from a different angle...but it shouldn't be dressed as 'fact', or science, if it hasn't gone through the same rigourous procedures as any other proposal, or hypothesis. Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by 'protecting them from reality.' I'm personally not happy to see anything dressed as "fact" or, fact is a deceptive wording to me. I'm not arguing against decades of experiment, that *effectively* "proves" things. I more think it reveals a fundamental particular attitude on howoto view science as facts and that there is a always simple test to see if something is science and not. OTOH I don't see science as disconnected from the rest of life. It's when ideas escape into the public domain, dressed as fact, that the problems start. An alternative view is that problems start when people think that certain sources are always to never be questioned, that "science" are about truth and if a "scientist" says someting, you better believe it. Then when some crackpot comes saying he has alternative science, people aren't critical and analytical - which is at least what science is about after all, rather than authorative distributing facts that has popped out of the sciencemachine where anyone who doesn't understand or believe it are either crackpots or mentally handicaped. In my world, even the mentally handicapped get an equal chance I still see your points which are good. Perhaps I am emphasizing this too much but all over the place this crackpot talk is received alot of space. I have never been harassed by a crackpot, and as far as I'm concerned, the crackpot notion could in fact be relative. I'm not mention any names but I've seen different people calling each other crackpots. /Fredrik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenTheMan Posted September 14, 2007 Author Share Posted September 14, 2007 Sorry to BenTheMan, if this has gone off topic. I think we are EXACTLY on topic I have never been harassed by a crackpot, and as far as I'm concerned, the crackpot notion could in fact be relative. I'm not mention any names but I've seen different people calling each other crackpots. Oh I could mention names. I call people crackpots all the time. Let me be the first to be counted. /Fredrik--- There seems to be a general tolerance for bad physics. Not bad science, mind you, but bad physics. Here are two examples which aren't by people whose names begin with Far... http://thesecret.tv/ http://www.whatthebleep.com/ People PAY MONEY for this shit. I know because my mom bought the second movie and I watched it with her. Ugh. When it comes to things like Evolution, and Intelligent Design, though, we are much more willing to voice our opinions. So why is it that bad biology (ID) and bad physics (see links) are treated differently? Why should I tolerate bad physics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 An alternative view is that problems start when people think that certain sources are always to never be questioned, that "science" are about truth and if a "scientist" says someting, you better believe it. Then when some crackpot comes saying he has alternative science, people aren't critical and analytical - which is at least what science is about after all, rather than authorative distributing facts that has popped out of the sciencemachine where anyone who doesn't understand or believe it are either crackpots or mentally handicaped. Well, having unquestioned sources is part of many accusations, but I think in general it's not true. The appearance can be there because the message and the messenger are often tied together, as Einstein-worship (perceived or real) and anti-worship shows. When a scientist touts relativity and uses it to dismantle some argument, is that scientist invoking Einstein, and advancing a thesis that Einstein should not be questioned? Generally, no, unless there is specific wording to make one think otherwise. A scientist invokes relativity because of the tremendous amount of testing the theory has undergone and survived — that's why we think it's true, and not because Albert said so. The "scientist as unquestioned authority" is a media invention, at least in part. The lay audience typically doesn't have the knowledge, nor the critical thinking skills, to evaluate a claim on its merits, so an expert is consulted. But that's not how it goes when you get a bunch scientists together to discuss something. If you have an idea, they say "convince me you're right." If you propose something that doesn't hold water, your colleagues will happily shoot it down, and it doesn't matter what your credentials are. But you've learned something in the exchange, and most scientists I know consider that very worthwhile. (the thing is that the scientists with the best credentials and biggest names are usually right, which is how they got the big name in the first place) Yes, science is about being critical and analytical. And invariably it's the crackpot that doesn't see this, and thinks that the great name of Einstein is being invoked to protect the orthodoxy (and that phrase/sentiment is a dead giveaway in a spot-the-crackpot-argument exercise) rather than a critical analysis of their proposal. I don't have a problem with someone who doesn't understand science and knows it, and wants to learn. The problem I have is with someone who doesn't understand science but think they do and and also think it's wrong but they have the right answer. As the second blog post put it, breakthroughs in science are not going to come from some random person who doesn't do math. And you aren't likely to understand why not if you don't understand science in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pioneer Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 What Einstein did was advance classical physics into the next level. The age of enlightment was heading toward higher and higher levels of clarity. With relativity, it became scientific, once again, to drift off into the nebulous worlds of imaginary science. It was an example of math making predictions before experiments. Before that, the approach was experients and then the math as an addendum. If we introduced string theory back then, it would have been called alchemy. Einstein took some of the starch out of the stuffed shirts of science, to make this possible. This social change was also reflected in the art change of that time (side topic). It changed from impressionist where clarity was becoming fuzzy. Or science was getting deeper than its own experimental capability. At the turn of the 20th century, abstract art reflected, abstract thinking. Another thing about Einstein was his personna. He was not the cold, arrogant and cynical scientist, but a kindly grandfather figure that made science far more approachable to the masses. He was the nice guy that the majority of people could identify and relate to. If he had been a arrogant fool, his appeal to the masses would be far less. He got squeezed out of the game by others, who had the proper physics personna. Einstein was an example of the nice guy starting in front and finishing last. His image continues to bridge scientists and layman. He appeals across all the boundries of knowledge and science, like no other modern scientist. Sometimes critical acclaim for and by the experts, doesn't filter down to history. Einstein survives both in his science and his spirit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 He was not the cold, arrogant and cynical scientist i have only ever met 1 single scientist like that. he wasn't a very good one either. also, i don't see what you mean about relativity being the last scientfic model based on maths. there have been THOUSANDS since. quantum mechanics for one. that was something einstein tried to destroy because he didn't like it. and just because there is one theory(string) that is a bit of an offshoot(though i don't know enough about it to make a reliable comment) from mainstream that is not the only thing scientists have been working on since the time of einstein. the majority of scientisits probably have no idea what it's about. you are another example of a layman misrepresenting science an scientists pioneer. you'd do well to think twice before you post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenTheMan Posted September 14, 2007 Author Share Posted September 14, 2007 The problem I have is with someone who doesn't understand science but think they do and and also think it's wrong but they have the right answer. ...the right answer OR the right TO answer. It was an example of math making predictions before experiments. You've just reduced a thousand years of physics to a post script on some experiment. I disagree heartily, needless to say. It has ALWAYS been the position of science to PREDICT and the MEASURE. If you don't believe me, read something by Francis Bacon. Or just look at Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 You've just reduced a thousand years of physics to a post script on some experiment. I disagree heartily, needless to say. It has ALWAYS been the position of science to PREDICT and the MEASURE. If you don't believe me, read something by Francis Bacon. Or just look at Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method But there are certainly many example of unexplained results spurring new theoretical advances in order to explain them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now