Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[godless dave]

My notion is that warp drives and wormholes are potential sources of inspiration for work that can accomplish generally accepted goals in physics: discovery of more fundamental principles.

Here's my suggested source of inspiration for work that can accomplish the discovery of more fundamental principles: a desire to discover more about the fundamental principles of physics.

 

[BurntSynapse]

I...was instead criticizing your specific belief that faster-than-light travel can be achieved...

As stated many, many times, I have no such belief, especially with the traditional definition of travel.

I've seen debates where the critic has X time (or something) to state a position in a manner the advocate accepts as accurate, prior to criticizing.

Most criticism I've gotten here are either not really actionable, such as industry standard recommendations are "wrapped around nothing" or sarcastic "who could object to that?" (of "changing words"), or they attack positions significantly at odds with mine.

Anyone willing to invest the effort necessary for reasonable dialog in this way with me certainly deserves to be taken seriously IMO, if only for demonstrating sincerity.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Here's my suggested source of inspiration for work that can accomplish the discovery of more fundamental principles: a desire to discover more about the fundamental principles of physics.

If you can support the idea that historically, it is better not to add Nersessian's "concrete problem" to an undirected desire, I'll be happy to agree.

 

[steenkh]

As stated many, many times, I have no such belief, especially with the traditional definition of travel.

And yet, you have time and again argued that we could achieve FTL travel by employing better project management!

Or have you decided to redefine 'travel' so that actual physical travel is not involved?

 

[BurntSynapse]

And yet, you have time and again argued that we could achieve FTL travel by employing better project management!

There are no guarantees, and assuming FTL is possible. The generally accepted view is that good project management is proven to do what it was designed for.

Like most audits of existing policy, new developments in standards tend to reveal potential updates to policy, yes.

Or have you decided to redefine 'travel' so that actual physical travel is not involved?

Its hard to say precisely whether getting from A to B while not crossing the intervening distance is travel, especially when distance may be reinterpreted.

Do characters 'travel' in a Star Trek transporter if converted to an energy stream and reconstructed somewhere? That seems a grey area.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I...was instead criticizing your specific belief that faster-than-light travel can be achieved...

As stated many, many times, I have no such belief, especially with the traditional definition of travel.

I am delighted to hear you do not really believe faster-than-light travel can be achieved by applying the principles of project management to scientific research in much the same way as one would apply those principles to a home improvement project.

I apologize for thinking I had heard Buck Field say something very like that at 2:35 in his video.

Most criticism I've gotten here are either not really actionable, such as industry standard recommendations are "wrapped around nothing" or sarcastic "who could object to that?" (of "changing words"), or they attack positions significantly at odds with mine.

Let me then offer some actionable criticism.

In your video, you mentioned criticism of your bafflegab, and attributed that criticism to your audience's ignorance of project management.

That's not the reason we have so often referred to your writing as bafflegab. The reason we often refer to your writing as bafflegab is you often write stuff like this:

This appears to me (at the moment) consistent with long established history and philosophy of scientific revolutions, the Nersessian Model, and the goal of discovering deeper theory seems to be an overwhelming consensus in the physics community, I mostly rely on frequent Aspen visitor and decent skier Lisa Randall for this.

Here's an actionable project for you to manage:

• Print your words quoted above ("This appears to me (at the moment)...Lisa Randall for this.") on a piece of paper.
• Go to your local high school or community college and ask to speak to someone who teaches English.
• Show that piece of paper to the English teacher and ask why someone might refer to your words as bafflegab.

 

[BurntSynapse]

...you attributed criticism to your audience's ignorance of project management. That's not the reason we have so often referred to your writing as bafflegab.

I agree it doesn't really seem to be the most proximate cause to me, but I considered that wording more diplomatic.

 

[godless dave]

If you can support the idea that historically, it is better not to add Nersessian's "concrete problem" to an undirected desire, I'll be happy to agree.

I think the history of physics, chemistry, and biology research supports it. Were Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Curie, Wallace, and Darwin motivated by concrete problems?

 

[BurntSynapse]

I apologize for thinking I had heard Buck Field say something very like that at 2:35 in his video.

I think we both know you heard something similar, and that the similarity is comparable to the similarity between "a lightning bolt" and "a lightning bug", which is to say: a substantial difference in meaning, however close the wording.

 

[BurntSynapse]

I think the history of physics, chemistry, and biology research supports it. Were Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Curie, Wallace, and Darwin motivated by concrete problems?

If I understand the rules of skepticism, it is the obligation of the person making the claim to support it.

If you say history of physics, chemistry, and biology research supports that the Nersessian model is invalid, and lack of a concrete problem is superior, it would seem to be your obligation to demonstrate these exemplars support your interpretation, especially in light of general acceptance of Nersessian's theory.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I blame quantum physics. I swear every Woo Slinger out there probably squealed like a schoolgirl when they first heard the concept because in spite of all logic and reason whenever a Woo Slinger talks about quantum physics all they seem capable of thinking it means is "OMG Science actually says weird unexplainable things can happen, therefore any weird unexplainable thing I want believe in has to be true!"

 

[Reality Check]

If I understand the rules of skepticism, it is the obligation of the person making the claim to support it.

godless dave did support his assertion, BurntSynapse in the post that you quoted. The history of science shows that there have been scientists who were not motivated by "concrete problems". They were more motivated by a desire to discover more about the fundamental principles of physics.

godless dave did not assert that a "lack of a concrete problem is superior". His statement was:

Here's my suggested source of inspiration for work that can accomplish the discovery of more fundamental principles: a desire to discover more about the fundamental principles of physics.

 

[ben m]

BurntSynapse, please cite a particular paper of Nersessian's that describes what you refer to "Nersessian's theory".

 

[Reality Check]

..the Nersessian model...

There is Nancy J. Nersessian who is studying the existing cognition processes in science. She wrote a book in 1999 which you may be referring to: Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery.

The book Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery, aims to explain how specific modeling practices employed by scientists are productive methods of creative changes in science. The study of diagnostic, visual, spatial, analogical, and temporal reasoning has demonstrated that there are many ways of performing intelligent and creative reasoning which cannot be described by classical logic alone. The study of these high-level methods of reasoning is situated at the crossroads of philosophy, artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, and logic: at the heart of cognitive science.

This has nothing to do with the so far inapplicable project management practices that you think will increase scientific progress, BurntSynapse.

 

[BurntSynapse]

godless dave did support his assertion, BurntSynapse in the post that you quoted.

If you believe "I think..." constitutes support, then I will agree to disagree.

The history of science shows that there have been scientists who were not motivated by "concrete problems".

Repeating an assertion is not support either.

They were more motivated by a desire to discover more about the fundamental principles of physics.

This suggests you think the question "Which is more motivating?" is at at issue and/or that these are circumstances are incompatible somehow, neither of which I think are generally accepted in the HPS community.

Further, in PM we typically think of organizing principles (scope or here: problem) as different than motivations (e.g.: justification or here: desire).

godless dave did not assert that a "lack of a concrete problem is superior". His statement was:

The statement you quote (re: desire to discover) is an earlier comment, not the one to which my objection applies. Rather, my objection is to his response here.

 

[Reality Check]

his response here[/URL].

Your objection is even more irrelevant then since that is
* evidence (the history of science) against your assertion and
* a question from godless dave

I think the history of physics, chemistry, and biology research supports it. Were Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Curie, Wallace, and Darwin motivated by concrete problems?

Of course that is in reply to a fairly irrelevant reply from you

Here's my suggested source of inspiration for work that can accomplish the discovery of more fundamental principles: a desire to discover more about the fundamental principles of physics.

If you can support the idea that historically, it is better not to add Nersessian's "concrete problem" to an undirected desire, I'll be happy to agree.

with no explanations of this "concrete problem" term.

ETA: Looks like your reply was close to gibberish. "Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery" has Nersessian writing

Exemplars, according to Kuhn, are "concrete problem solutions accepted by a group as, in quite a usual sense, paradigmatic" (Kuhn, 1977, p.298)

 

[theprestige]

I think we both know you heard something similar, and that the similarity is comparable to the similarity between "a lightning bolt" and "a lightning bug", which is to say: a substantial difference in meaning, however close the wording.

Bafflegab.

Someone sincerely interested in clear communication would have replied, "here's what I actually said, in writing to avoid mishearing. To avoid misunderstanding, here's what I meant by it..."

Every project manager I've ever worked with or been married to* has demonstrated an unswerving commitment to clarity, simplicity, and concrete statements. Your inability to demonstrate the same almost convinces me that you're not actually what you claim to be.















*One, in that latter category, and happily so.

 

[Cuddles]

If I understand the rules of skepticism

Evidently not.

it is the obligation of the person making the claim to support it.

That would be you. In case you've forgotten, you're supposed to be supporting your claim that combining verbal diarrhoea with word salad will somehow result in science.

Repeating an assertion is not support either.

Indeed. Perhaps you should stop doing it then?

 

[BurntSynapse]

Your objection is even more irrelevant then since that is
* evidence (the history of science) against your assertion and

Suggesting either "I think..." or..."a question from godless dave"
...is evidence.

I'm not even sure how we might support the claim that problem-solving was not involved in some particular research. Although a single claim, (however unreliable) by a researcher claiming they were deliberately not trying to solve a problem during their process of discovery would at least make the proposition worth considering.

I doubt any such examples for Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Curie, Wallace, and Darwin can be provided, but as always, I welcome evidence overturning this preconception.

This would seem fairly chancy in light of how commonly HPS provides explanations in terms like:

Einstein: "I only began to wonder about space and time when I was already grown up. In consequence I probed deeper into the problem than an ordinary child would have done."

"Rutherford, who had a few years earlier, discovered the planetary model of the atom asked Bohr to work on it because there were some problems with the model."

One of Curie's problems: discrepancy between uranium radiation and phosphoresent stuff.

Wallace and Darwin: Numerous problems with transmutation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmutation_of_species#Opposition_to_transmutation

...and with critics able to offer nothing much in contrast but accusations of "bafflegab", et al., it seems most conservative to stick with experts in the HPS field for findings in their specialty.

 

[Reality Check]

BurntSynapse, Please define Nersessian's "concrete problem"

Suggesting either "I think..." or..."a question from godless dave"
...is evidence.

Reading comprehension does not seem to be a strength, BurntSynapse .
There are 2 sentences in that post by godless dave:
* The (suggestion for) evidence: "I think the history of physics, chemistry, and biology research supports it."
* The question: Were Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Curie, Wallace, and Darwin motivated by concrete problems?

The proper response to the question is something like:
* Nersessian's "concrete problem" is defined as ...
* Thus X, Y and Z were motivated by Nersessian's "concrete problem" as in these citations ...

Where is the assertion that problem-solving was not involved in some particular research, BurntSynapse?

godless dave is stating the obvious - that theoretical scientists are not primarily motivated by your undefined "concrete problems". They are motivated by a wish to expand the frontiers of science or to fix gaps in theory.

I will emphasize the point you missed, BurntSynapse : You still have no citation about or definition of Nersessian's "concrete problem".
And

ETA: Looks like your reply was close to gibberish. "Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery" has Nersessian writing

Actually that should be your assertion about Nersessian's "concrete problem" looks like gibberish .

Einstein stating that he was motivated by theoretical rather than your undefined Nersessian's "concrete problem":
"I only began to wonder about space and time when I was already grown up. In consequence I probed deeper into the problem than an ordinary child would have done."

Rutherford being motivated by theory than your undefined Nersessian's "concrete problem":
"Rutherford, who had a few years earlier, discovered the planetary model of the atom asked Bohr to work on it because there were some problems with the model."

Curie was actually motivated by experiments (not your undefined Nersessian's "concrete problem").

Wallace and Darwin were not motivated by your undefined Nersessian's "concrete problem".