Saturday, January 09, 2021
Betting on Loeb
I listen to Abraham Loeb because he has repeatedly showed genuine independence from the tyranny of Big Science.
I've noticed two examples, and there are probably others that I didn't read.
= = = = =
(1)
The experience of subjecting a theoretical conjecture to an experimental test is humbling. If the conjecture turns out to be wrong, it must be adjusted. Becoming a physicist brings with it the privilege of retaining your childhood curiosity throughout your adult life. There is no need to pretend you know more than you actually do, and you can admit mistakes if proven wrong by experience, just like a child who is seeking to learn about the world. Doing pure theory without worrying about experimental verification actually deprives one from the pleasure of learning something new about nature.EXACTLY. Pure theory deprives you of the PLEASURE of learning something new. I might add the pleasure of learning something TRUE. Loeb again:
The feedback from experimental data is essential. At its foundation, physics is a dialogue with nature, not a monologue as some theorists would prefer to believe.Whether he knows it or not, he's quoting Carver! = = = = = (2)
At the first annual conference of Harvard’s Black Hole Initiative, a philosopher concluded his talk by stating that “conversations with some prominent theoretical physicists led me to conclude that if the physics community agrees on a research program for over a decade, then it must be correct.” I realized that his conclusion must have been inspired by a scientific culture in which authority sets the tone. My personal experience has taught me otherwise. As Galileo reasoned after looking through his telescope, “in the sciences, the authority of a thousand is not worth as much as the humble reasoning of a single individual.” To which I would add the footnote that sometimes Mother Nature is kinder to innovative ideas than people are.= = = = = Recently Loeb has been insisting that a random-looking space object is a leftover of an alien civilization, not just a collection of dust. He's taking plenty of guff for this insistence. Frankly I don't see the uniqueness of the object; a random rock can be accelerated by the pressure of sunlight or by the sun's magnetic field. Still, a thinker with a firm history of independent VALID thought deserves serious consideration. He has a much better chance of being correct than anybody else who gets published. = = = = = Later thought from the angle of science as entertainment. It doesn't matter if Loeb is correct or not. Science doesn't determine truth. Nature is truth. Science is just a type of narrative, and can be used for inspiration or amusement like any other story. When a scientific story agrees with Nature, it's a useful parable, possibly leading to useful thoughts and habits. When a scientific story disagrees with Nature, it's destructive. Before March 2020, "medicine" was trying to agree with Nature, so it was a useful form of entertainment. After March 2020, "medicine" is devoted to obliterating life and truth and logic and Nature, so it's infinitely worse than useless. If a movie openly promised to kill you while you watched it, would you watch it?
Labels: Carver, Entertainment
¶ 11:52 PM
