On Friday, 2 September 2022 at 01:04:44 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Ethan Siegel: "Scientific Theories Never Die, Not Unless Scientists Choose To Let Them. When it comes to science, we like to think that we formulate hypotheses, test them, throw away the ones that fail to match, and continue testing the successful one
until only the best ideas are left. But the truth is a lot muddier than that. The actual process of science involves tweaking your initial hypothesis over and over, trying to pull it in line with what we already know. [...] By the addition of enough
extra free parameters, caveats, behaviors, or modifications to your theory, you can literally salvage any idea. As long as you're willing to tweak what you've come up with sufficiently, you can never rule anything out."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/
startswithabang/2017/11/16/scientific-theories-never-die-not-unless-scientists-choose-to-let-them/
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
Theoretical physics is a scam, isn't it?
Yes.And reading the various contributors on math.edu arguing about whether or not there
are 6*x^12 /cr^2 angels on a pinhead or not is depressing.
It makes me realise the problem with physics and it’s complete failure to model or explain
Data including the latest JWST data is because idiots with math degrees ( these idiots should stick to
writing code for video games)think that because they can prove that 1x1=3 on their
calculator..,...then they can ignore centuries of empirical observed data.
And fantasise that the universe is made of string. String that can’t be observed.
Kind of like the way the Einstein fantasists pretend that photons, gluons, quarks
exist...even though don’t really exist and anyways they can’t actually see them.
Or like the way Kim et al pretended that by ignoring classical polarisation effects
he could fantasise that the classical polarisation states of light arriving at his detectors
we’re caused by little magic genies in lamps. In his pre copernican style ‘Delayed choice
Quantum eraser’ experiment
Having said that, ignoring data certainly worked for many people like Linde, Albert, DrBecky,
Hawking, Sabine, Heisenberg et al who all made loadsamoney out of selling dodgy
used cars to old ladies. And then even more by conning Swedes out of cash. Swedes to stupid to realise a used car with only 200 miles was actually a death trap
with 20,000 miles on its odometer.
More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)