Re: Quantum Gravity 193.5: Converting Clifford Algebra and Physics To Probability Equations Via 2 --> 1 + P(A<-->B)
- From: OsherD <mdoctorow@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 12:27:24 -0700
From Osher Doctorow
As you say, the internet is extremely valuable despite the possibility
of propagating wrong ideas. Usually, charlatans and crooks can be
rather easily detected by a surprising method: they don't reveal the
"secrets" of their alleged inventions or theories. That's one reason
why simplicity including the ability to translate into mostly ordinary
language is so valuable, because complete phonies would reveal their
hoaxes by such translation and simplicity. They have to keep their
inventions mysterious "black boxes", or promise to reveal them later
(which never happens). Needless to say, "subconscious" hoaxers of
more established positions in physics do something similar.
Some people do try to partly reveal their methods and simplify (among
established physics or mathematics professionals), both on and off the
internet, but they really aren't interested in this deeply and they
think that they're mostly addressing their own colleagues and
potential research students whom they can use to do the boring parts
of their research. So their "revealing" of methods and theories
mostly takes the form of "hints", rough outlines that you can't use to
do anything with, references to other writings, and use of many
undefined terms which supposedly you can look up if you have endless
time on your hands, combined with suggestions or indications that the
reader should contact them for continuation of their "explanations" or
even combined with reference to a particular colleague's knowledge
that almost nobody else knows.
With all this happening, why do some highly "reputable" scientists and
mathematicians compile online lists of "Cranks"? It is for several
reasons in my opinion.
1. They don't trust readers to have the ability or interest to be
able to detect or guess at who the Charlatans are, and they don't want
to reveal such methods of detection because their brains don't go in
the direction of helping other Individuals compared to helping
Themselves ("Number-One," "Me First").
2. They believe in the "Gauntlet" or "torture" theory of
universities, in which the only way to attain their own level of
Knowledge is believed to be going through severe criticism in Ph.D.
written and oral quals, going through the supposedly severe criticism
of Publish-or-Perish journals and interminable meetings with
colleagues both in their university and at professional meetings.
Usually, these people are extremely Stupid in history, having not the
faintest idea that Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Chopin, the Strauss
family, Bach, Haydn, and so on in Classical and Romance Music attained
extremely high levels of Creative Genius with relatively little
contact with university bureaucracies. This was also the case with
Michael Faraday and Pierre de Fermat for example, respectively in
physics and mathematics, both of whom would be called "untenured
amateurs" today, but Fermat for example founded several branches of
mathematics and contributed importantly to physics ahead of the
"Professionals".
Osher Doctorow
On Nov 3, 8:52 am, Huang <huangxienc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think that you are right regarding what you said earlier about the
power of the internet and it's potential power to influence thinking
and science. If we allow government, beaurocracies and big business to
control the dissemination and even the creation of new ideas then we
will forever be subjected to corporate greed as it will manifest in
those areas.
The internet bypasses all of those barriers to creating new ideas and
allows free people to think freely and share ideas with other free
thinking people, making these beaurocracies obselete and in fact
inconsequential. The inherent danger is that ideas which are false can
be propagated into mainstream thought, but this danger must be weighed
against the suppression of truths which would benefit man.- Hide quoted text -
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: Quantum Gravity 193.5: Converting Clifford Algebra and Physics To Probability Equations Via 2 --> 1 + P(A<-->B)
- From: OsherD
- Re: Quantum Gravity 193.5: Converting Clifford Algebra and Physics To Probability Equations Via 2 --> 1 + P(A<-->B)
- From: Huang
- Re: Quantum Gravity 193.5: Converting Clifford Algebra and Physics To Probability Equations Via 2 --> 1 + P(A<-->B)
- From: OsherD
- Re: Quantum Gravity 193.5: Converting Clifford Algebra and Physics To Probability Equations Via 2 --> 1 + P(A<-->B)
- From: Huang
- Re: Quantum Gravity 193.5: Converting Clifford Algebra and Physics To Probability Equations Via 2 --> 1 + P(A<-->B)
- From: OsherD
- Re: Quantum Gravity 193.5: Converting Clifford Algebra and Physics To Probability Equations Via 2 --> 1 + P(A<-->B)
- From: Huang
- Re: Quantum Gravity 193.5: Converting Clifford Algebra and Physics To Probability Equations Via 2 --> 1 + P(A<-->B)
- Prev by Date: Re: Whats happening next Tuesday ?
- Next by Date: Quantum Gravity 199.2: Doctorow on Planar Graphs
- Previous by thread: Re: Quantum Gravity 193.5: Converting Clifford Algebra and Physics To Probability Equations Via 2 --> 1 + P(A<-->B)
- Next by thread: Re: Quantum Gravity 193.5: Converting Clifford Algebra and Physics To Probability Equations Via 2 --> 1 + P(A<-->B)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|