Re: [asa] String theory and what that means

On 8/14/08, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:
> If by "tribal mentality" you mean that the scientific community is very
> conservative and will only embrace novel and radical ideas that overturn
> conventional wisdom when the evidence is quite compelling, then I agree
> wholeheartedly that it exists but would argue that it is good.>>

That was not my focus nor my argument at all, Randy.

> If you mean > that the scientific community is hostile toward those advocating radical
> ideas without solid evidence that has been vetted with the typical
> scientific methodology of that field, then I would again argue that such a
> mentality is justified.>>

That was part of my focus. Hostility and ridicule are unjustified if
they are made towards persons. Maybe even towards ideas. Counter
arguments towards ideas, such as YEC arguments are, of course, quite
in order. So is simply ignoring them.

Hostility and ridicule are non-Christlike attitudes. That are also
often wildly counterproductive.

> the scientific community is a
> self-correcting, self-policing kind of body and it must have a means of
> dealing with antigens.

The Smolin book suggests that it is not as self-correcting as we might
like to believe.

> If you mean "tribal mentality" as a community that
> will defend the consensus view at all costs, preventing all data and views
> to the contrary from being published, then I might gently suggest that this
> grossly misrepresents the scientific community, particularly in GW.

Again I point to Smolin's book. The string theorist community seems to
have gone beyond the bounds. That does not mean they are wrong, says
Lee, but it does indicate they have stifled other approaches. And the
result has been little or no fundemental advances in 25 years.

I am reading now Mackay's EXTRAORDINARY POPULAR DELUSIONS AND TH
MADNESS OF CROWDS. Interesting parallels. In some ways it reminds me
of the 1980s at IBM when huge mainframes were still "the only game in
town" to some people.

> All the
> climatologists I've personally talked with would desperately love to be
> shown wrong on GW or to find out that it really isn't true. And they would
> give their eyeteeth to be able to be the ones to show that it's wrong. They
> don't care about defending any status quo. They do get upset--and sometimes
> overreact-- about the constant misunderstanding and misrepresentation from
> amateurs (meaning those not actively publishing in the relevant professional
> journals) who continue to hype arguments that have not passed muster in
> scientific methodology.

I understand. But some of those counter-arguments don't seem to be
addressed. Freeman Dyson's comments, for instance. Not to mention
those of Glenn Morton.
>
> Remember that Smolin is talking about a theory without data (for which his
> own theory is the leading contender!) that has captivated the imagination of
> many theorists and siphoned off a disproportionate share of research
> funding. Mapping that over to Velikovsky or YEC or GW doesn't work very
> well.

Not a theory w/o data, but one for which no testability can be
imagined. At least not today. Mapping it over -- well -- the mapping
is in "popular movements." There it fits.

Burgy -- whose motto is "Born with the gift of laughter, and a sense
that the world was mad." (Sabatini)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Aug 18 11:16:25 2008