The Trouble with Physicists in The Dot Connector magazine

[ark]

The new issue of The Dot Connector magazine is out. And there we have an article by a member of the Clifford Algebra Center CAIROS


* The Trouble with Physicists
– by Carlos Castro Perelman, Ph.D..
The corruption of physicists falls off the radar screen of interest for the majority of the public. Perhaps this could be a reason why not much has been printed in the news media. The recent Climategate scandal is just one of the many stories reflecting such corruption. Many politicians do not care about the scientific truth, but instead about gaining more power and wealth. Many physicists do not care much about the blacklisting by the arXiv.org at Cornell University as long as it does not affect them...

Worth reading. Carlos Castro Perelman is the author of "Against the Tide" - which contains contributions of a number of scientists:

- which those of you interested in the subject can freely download.

 

[Gimpy]

I've been trying to inform my Hubby about the subject, and just can't get it across to him. This will help a lot. :) He loves the Dot Connector, and we plan to share our copies with other folks. Thank you!

 

[Buddy]

The new issue of The Dot Connector magazine is out. And there we have an article...

Thank you! I became absolutely fascinated from page 86 on, dealing with "Examples of intrinsic redshifts and non Big Bang cosmology". That certainly explains various conversational fragments containing 'redshift' that I've come across here and there. :)

 

[dant]

I love this quote for obvious reasons:

[...]
Having the courage of one's own convictions is the opposite of succumbing to peer pressure. Someone
who appreciates the fallibility of human reasoning but nonetheless applies the Scientific Method with brutal
objectivity and lets the results speak for themselves has nothing to fear from the judgments of peers, or of
history. Only those who fail to recognize reality for what it is, and instead try to tell reality what it must be,
need fear that judgment.
[...]

Thanks Ark!
Dan

 

[mkrnhr]

I just read the chapter "WHAT DO ASTROPHYSICS AND THE WORLD'S OLDEST PROFESSION HAVE IN COMMON?" and his description is accurate point by point. The first paragraph about PhD students is not a caricature, it really happens that way and i knew many PhD students who went through depression because of that. The rest is also a great testemony of what one could see everyday (and every night).

 

[dant]

Yes, and it is not restricted to Astrophysics, but to most, if not
all disciplines in academia, or so it seems. Everything seems to
be very tightly controlled...

[I hope this is still on topic below...]

The idea seems, that once one becomes a master on the apex
of this hierarchy, who in their lifetime can replace the master,
under what circumstances and/or criteria? Seems to me,
there are two factors: Those for objective knowledge and those
against objective knowledge (and those "in between")?

Can there be "co-masters", given the hierarchial/pyramidal
structure as it is? I note that the pyramidal structure is both
horizontal and vertical starting at the base, but as one travels
"up" vertically, horizontal movement becomes more restricted
until reaches a point where there isn't any horizontal movement
left. Does that mean there can be no "co-masters", or just one
master?

I think it was hinted somewhere in this book that in order
to be a master, one must find a niche, a specialization that
is not already taken by a master but even then, one must still
pay homage to the establishment's official "rules" or dogmas
in order to receive and hold onto that specialized title? Submit
or resign?

Can one try to "game the system" from within, using strategic
enclosure, and succeed for very long?

One way out, it seems, that one must become their own
master, to find the means to survive on their own, or work with
other like-minded "masters" or be "co-masters", "co" meaning
by cooperative agreement, networking together and towards a
common aim, to seek objective knowledge?

The pyramidal structure reminds me of the children's game
called "King of the Hill", perhaps a bit of game theory and a
bigger psychopath? Perhaps one does not need to play this
game at all?

FWIW,
Dan

 

[ana]

Can one try to "game the system" from within, using strategic
enclosure, and succeed for very long?

One way out, it seems, that one must become their own
master, to find the means to survive on their own, or work with
other like-minded "masters" or be "co-masters", "co" meaning
by cooperative agreement, networking together and towards a
common aim, to seek objective knowledge?

Where does the need for surviving comes from?

If what we know serves for our survival, that is one option.
If what we know is constantly given to others, that is another option. :)

 

[Buddy]

Can one try to "game the system" from within, using strategic
enclosure, and succeed for very long?

One way out, it seems, that one must become their own
master, to find the means to survive on their own, or work with
other like-minded "masters" or be "co-masters", "co" meaning
by cooperative agreement, networking together and towards a
common aim, to seek objective knowledge?

If the context is "all disciplines in academia" and if the statement "to find the means to survive on their own" refers to self-reliance in that context, I would agree as it would seem to deal with the issue of dependency on ponerized and/or pathological individuals.

However, there is the issue of "compliance monitoring" to deal with. Even if you, yourself, are not caught up in everyone else's mis-representations, you would be, by default, an accepted fellow/brother, etc. and naturally expected to 'deal with' others who aren't compliant, or contempt/threat displays will likely be made on you.

How about that doctor, who after 38 years of practice, was fired and ordered to have a psychiatric evaluation as punishment for telling his colleagues about the H1N1 vaccine?? :(

 

[dant]

Yes, a very good point.
You cannot serve both masters....

 

[dant]

The paper: "The Last Scientific Revolution by A. P. Kirilyuk"

It was hard to get through this paper as it was "high level"
thinking - but is well worth the read, osit.

A brief personal summary:

Mainstream organizational Science, as it is today,
is self-imposing it's subjective incorrect abstract
mathematical structures upon Nature as it believes
it ought to be *by wishful thinking", rather than
objectively observe and accept Nature for what it
really is? The author gives many examples where
data that does not fit the math, is often reduced
in (manipulated, arcane, symbolic, abstract) form?

But there is a lot more than summarized above, in
this paper.

{Edit: Added notes}
Curiously, from what I can tell, A. P. Kirilyuk points out
the different modes of scientific thought:

Descartes*/Objective/Open/unreduced/Dynamically-Multivalued (infinite)

as opposed to:

Newton*/Subjective/Closed/reduced/unitary,"positivistic",Zero-Dimensional (finite)

* See page 148, 2nd paragraph on Kirilyuk comparisions of Descartes v.s. Newton.
in scientific approaches: Descartes is seen as objective (observed phenomena),
whereas Newton is seen as subjective in trying to forge an exact science (positivism)
as if being in "perfect" in form, needing no further changes?
{End Edit}

FWIW,
Dan