Discussion:
Why Nature and Science Removed the Comment Facility
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2017-12-14 15:00:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The journals Nature and Science removed the comment facility because science is an elitist activity - the general public should not be involved. In particular, dead physics can only be resurrected by mainstream revolutionaries like Peter Woit and Sabine Hossenfelder, not by marginalized cranks, crackpots, trolls etc:

Leonard: "I know I said physics is dead, but it is the opposite of dead. If anything, it is undead, like a zombie."


Peter Woit: "If, as seems increasingly all too possible, we're now at an endpoint of fundamental physics, with the field killed off by a pseudo-scientific argument..." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9444

Peter Woit: "I think the worst thing that has happened to theoretical physics over the past 25 years is this descent into ideology, something that has accelerated with the multiverse mania of the last 10-15 years." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375

Peter Woit: "Many are worried about the status of science in our society, as it faces new challenges. I don't see how the physics community is going to continue to have any credibility with the rest of society if it sits back and allows multiverse mania to enter the canon. Non-scientists taking science classes need to be taught about the importance of always asking: what would it take to show that this theory is wrong? how do I know this is science not ideology?" http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9469

Peter Woit: "As far as this stuff goes, we're now not only at John Horgan's "End of Science", but gone past it already and deep into something different." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7266

Peter Woit: "This all of a sudden made things clear: what is going on is "theatrical physics", not "theoretical physics"." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9691

Sabine Hossenfelder: "Many of my colleagues believe this forest of theories will eventually be chopped down by data. But in the foundations of physics it has become extremely rare for any model to be ruled out. The accepted practice is instead to adjust the model so that it continues to agree with the lack of empirical support." http://www.nature.com.proxy.readcube.com/nphys/journal/v13/n4/full/nphys4079.html

Sabine Hossenfelder (Bee): "The criticism you raise that there are lots of speculative models that have no known relevance for the description of nature has very little to do with string theory but is a general disease of the research area. Lots of theorists produce lots of models that have no chance of ever being tested or ruled out because that's how they earn a living. The smaller the probability of the model being ruled out in their lifetime, the better. It's basic economics. Survival of the 'fittest' resulting in the natural selection of invincible models that can forever be amended." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375

Sabine Hossenfelder: "The current situation in the foundations of physics is a vivid example for how science fails to self-correct. [...] I just meant to say I have debated back and forth with myself for a long time whether I should publicly denounce most of the research in my field as nonsense. It would have been easy enough to write a book about something else, you know, the usual science cheer leading stuff. But it's just not me." http://backreaction.blogspot.bg/2017/10/book-update.html

Pentcho Valev
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
2017-12-15 10:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Planck's conception of nature placed great emphasis upon its intrinsic
rationality
And independence of human thought as most fundamental conceptions of nature
Needed to be aware of the need to identify tha deep structure which was far
from

The needs of human utility and convenience as Planck did not really believe
in any
Attainable all encompassing theory of physics which would explain all a
constants
Of nature such theory arrived then physics would cease to be an inductive
science
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!


"Pentcho Valev" kirjoitti
viestissä:24db3573-e69a-431d-a9e7-***@googlegroups.com...

The journals Nature and Science removed the comment facility because science
is an elitist activity - the general public should not be involved. In
particular, dead physics can only be resurrected by mainstream
revolutionaries like Peter Woit and Sabine Hossenfelder, not by marginalized
cranks, crackpots, trolls etc:

Leonard: "I know I said physics is dead, but it is the opposite of dead. If
anything, it is undead, like a zombie."
http://youtu.be/GDNP9KOEdh0

Peter Woit: "If, as seems increasingly all too possible, we're now at an
endpoint of fundamental physics, with the field killed off by a
pseudo-scientific argument..."
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9444

Peter Woit: "I think the worst thing that has happened to theoretical
physics over the past 25 years is this descent into ideology, something that
has accelerated with the multiverse mania of the last 10-15 years."
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375

Peter Woit: "Many are worried about the status of science in our society, as
it faces new challenges. I don't see how the physics community is going to
continue to have any credibility with the rest of society if it sits back
and allows multiverse mania to enter the canon. Non-scientists taking
science classes need to be taught about the importance of always asking:
what would it take to show that this theory is wrong? how do I know this is
science not ideology?" http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9469

Peter Woit: "As far as this stuff goes, we're now not only at John Horgan's
"End of Science", but gone past it already and deep into something
different." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7266

Peter Woit: "This all of a sudden made things clear: what is going on is
"theatrical physics", not "theoretical physics"."
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9691

Sabine Hossenfelder: "Many of my colleagues believe this forest of theories
will eventually be chopped down by data. But in the foundations of physics
it has become extremely rare for any model to be ruled out. The accepted
practice is instead to adjust the model so that it continues to agree with
the lack of empirical support."
http://www.nature.com.proxy.readcube.com/nphys/journal/v13/n4/full/nphys4079.html

Sabine Hossenfelder (Bee): "The criticism you raise that there are lots of
speculative models that have no known relevance for the description of
nature has very little to do with string theory but is a general disease of
the research area. Lots of theorists produce lots of models that have no
chance of ever being tested or ruled out because that's how they earn a
living. The smaller the probability of the model being ruled out in their
lifetime, the better. It's basic economics. Survival of the 'fittest'
resulting in the natural selection of invincible models that can forever be
amended." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375

Sabine Hossenfelder: "The current situation in the foundations of physics is
a vivid example for how science fails to self-correct. [...] I just meant to
say I have debated back and forth with myself for a long time whether I
should publicly denounce most of the research in my field as nonsense. It
would have been easy enough to write a book about something else, you know,
the usual science cheer leading stuff. But it's just not me."
http://backreaction.blogspot.bg/2017/10/book-update.html

Pentcho Valev
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
2017-12-15 10:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Planck's conception of nature placed great emphasis upon its intrinsic
rationality
And independence of human thought as most fundamental conceptions of nature
Needed to be aware of the need to identify tha deep structure which was far
from

The needs of human utility and convenience as Planck did not really believe
in any
Attainable all encompassing theory of physics which would explain all a
constants
Of nature such theory arrived then physics would cease to be an inductive
science
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!


"Pentcho Valev" kirjoitti
viestissä:24db3573-e69a-431d-a9e7-***@googlegroups.com...

The journals Nature and Science removed the comment facility because science
is an elitist activity - the general public should not be involved. In
particular, dead physics can only be resurrected by mainstream
revolutionaries like Peter Woit and Sabine Hossenfelder, not by marginalized
cranks, crackpots, trolls etc:

Leonard: "I know I said physics is dead, but it is the opposite of dead. If
anything, it is undead, like a zombie."
http://youtu.be/GDNP9KOEdh0

Peter Woit: "If, as seems increasingly all too possible, we're now at an
endpoint of fundamental physics, with the field killed off by a
pseudo-scientific argument..."
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9444

Peter Woit: "I think the worst thing that has happened to theoretical
physics over the past 25 years is this descent into ideology, something that
has accelerated with the multiverse mania of the last 10-15 years."
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375

Peter Woit: "Many are worried about the status of science in our society, as
it faces new challenges. I don't see how the physics community is going to
continue to have any credibility with the rest of society if it sits back
and allows multiverse mania to enter the canon. Non-scientists taking
science classes need to be taught about the importance of always asking:
what would it take to show that this theory is wrong? how do I know this is
science not ideology?" http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9469

Peter Woit: "As far as this stuff goes, we're now not only at John Horgan's
"End of Science", but gone past it already and deep into something
different." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7266

Peter Woit: "This all of a sudden made things clear: what is going on is
"theatrical physics", not "theoretical physics"."
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9691

Sabine Hossenfelder: "Many of my colleagues believe this forest of theories
will eventually be chopped down by data. But in the foundations of physics
it has become extremely rare for any model to be ruled out. The accepted
practice is instead to adjust the model so that it continues to agree with
the lack of empirical support."
http://www.nature.com.proxy.readcube.com/nphys/journal/v13/n4/full/nphys4079.html

Sabine Hossenfelder (Bee): "The criticism you raise that there are lots of
speculative models that have no known relevance for the description of
nature has very little to do with string theory but is a general disease of
the research area. Lots of theorists produce lots of models that have no
chance of ever being tested or ruled out because that's how they earn a
living. The smaller the probability of the model being ruled out in their
lifetime, the better. It's basic economics. Survival of the 'fittest'
resulting in the natural selection of invincible models that can forever be
amended." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375

Sabine Hossenfelder: "The current situation in the foundations of physics is
a vivid example for how science fails to self-correct. [...] I just meant to
say I have debated back and forth with myself for a long time whether I
should publicly denounce most of the research in my field as nonsense. It
would have been easy enough to write a book about something else, you know,
the usual science cheer leading stuff. But it's just not me."
http://backreaction.blogspot.bg/2017/10/book-update.html

Pentcho Valev
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
2017-12-15 10:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Planck's conception of nature placed great emphasis upon its intrinsic
rationality
And independence of human thought as most fundamental conceptions of nature
Needed to be aware of the need to identify tha deep structure which was far
from

The needs of human utility and convenience as Planck did not really believe
in any
Attainable all encompassing theory of physics which would explain all a
constants
Of nature such theory arrived then physics would cease to be an inductive
science
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!


"Pentcho Valev" kirjoitti
viestissä:24db3573-e69a-431d-a9e7-***@googlegroups.com...

The journals Nature and Science removed the comment facility because science
is an elitist activity - the general public should not be involved. In
particular, dead physics can only be resurrected by mainstream
revolutionaries like Peter Woit and Sabine Hossenfelder, not by marginalized
cranks, crackpots, trolls etc:

Leonard: "I know I said physics is dead, but it is the opposite of dead. If
anything, it is undead, like a zombie."
http://youtu.be/GDNP9KOEdh0

Peter Woit: "If, as seems increasingly all too possible, we're now at an
endpoint of fundamental physics, with the field killed off by a
pseudo-scientific argument..."
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9444

Peter Woit: "I think the worst thing that has happened to theoretical
physics over the past 25 years is this descent into ideology, something that
has accelerated with the multiverse mania of the last 10-15 years."
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375

Peter Woit: "Many are worried about the status of science in our society, as
it faces new challenges. I don't see how the physics community is going to
continue to have any credibility with the rest of society if it sits back
and allows multiverse mania to enter the canon. Non-scientists taking
science classes need to be taught about the importance of always asking:
what would it take to show that this theory is wrong? how do I know this is
science not ideology?" http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9469

Peter Woit: "As far as this stuff goes, we're now not only at John Horgan's
"End of Science", but gone past it already and deep into something
different." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7266

Peter Woit: "This all of a sudden made things clear: what is going on is
"theatrical physics", not "theoretical physics"."
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9691

Sabine Hossenfelder: "Many of my colleagues believe this forest of theories
will eventually be chopped down by data. But in the foundations of physics
it has become extremely rare for any model to be ruled out. The accepted
practice is instead to adjust the model so that it continues to agree with
the lack of empirical support."
http://www.nature.com.proxy.readcube.com/nphys/journal/v13/n4/full/nphys4079.html

Sabine Hossenfelder (Bee): "The criticism you raise that there are lots of
speculative models that have no known relevance for the description of
nature has very little to do with string theory but is a general disease of
the research area. Lots of theorists produce lots of models that have no
chance of ever being tested or ruled out because that's how they earn a
living. The smaller the probability of the model being ruled out in their
lifetime, the better. It's basic economics. Survival of the 'fittest'
resulting in the natural selection of invincible models that can forever be
amended." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375

Sabine Hossenfelder: "The current situation in the foundations of physics is
a vivid example for how science fails to self-correct. [...] I just meant to
say I have debated back and forth with myself for a long time whether I
should publicly denounce most of the research in my field as nonsense. It
would have been easy enough to write a book about something else, you know,
the usual science cheer leading stuff. But it's just not me."
http://backreaction.blogspot.bg/2017/10/book-update.html

Pentcho Valev
Loading...