Originally posted by humy"In fact, if anything, it is a trivial observation of the mere historical fact that many scientists, including Einstein himself, right from the start, severely criticized him"
And you, who understands so little about the world of science but has so much to say about it, knows this how?
What is the premise or evidence for this assertion?
I for one haven't ever seen the slightest evidence of this; and I really AM very much into the world of science!
In fact, if anything, it is a trivial observation of the mere historical fact tha ...[text shortened]... lutely nothing to do with it! So you are clearly just talking complete delusional nonsense here.
Who is him? You did that in your previous post as well. I don't know who "him" is. You are assuming again. Just because you know who "him" is doesn't mean it is clear for others. Please be specific.
Originally posted by Metal BrainScience works within a formal language (or at least vocabulary) and a set of (accepted) empirical results. Things become interesting when the empirical results violate the formal language, the obvious example being the quantum revolution of the early 20th century. We do get the occasional bull merchant, but - hey - look at politics!!! - in general true claims are accepted and, in the end, false claims (fraudulent or just due to misunderstanding or technique) are called.
Not completely of course, but few can argue that facts alone guide which theories are accepted in the short term and which theories are not.
How much does popularity influence the course of science?
Big names are big names, sometimes on merit and sometimes because they can talk the talk - just as in any other field of endeavour the little science guy can become a big name - the fight is to ensure that that happens on merit and not on bull.
8 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainNiels Bohr.
"In fact, if anything, it is a trivial observation of the mere historical fact that many scientists, including Einstein himself, right from the start, severely criticized him"
Who is him?
You mentioned him in your second post.
He was certainly a physicist that would have been said to be very 'popular' but that certainly didn't make anyone afraid of criticizing his work (just his metaphysical interpretation of his work in his case ) !
But I had misread that post of yours (this is what I get from impatiently trying to read too fast ) and see now you didn't say he was an example people were afraid to criticize because he in particular was 'popular' so I apologize for that.
Still, the case of Niels Bohr proves you wrong about people being too 'afraid' to criticize 'popular' scientists in fear of losing their own popularity; if that was the case, how on earth would you explain the case of Niels Bohr?
I can also give a long list of other example of scientists that would surely be described as 'very popular' who still had their work severely criticized by many other people; Darwin and Einstein included; but I cannot think of a single notable example I know of to the contrary and I am very much into the world of science. So not only there appears to be no evidence for you assertion, but there is no shortage of powerful evidence against you assertion. You are simply wrong. The evidence of history very clearly shows that a scientist's popularity does extremely little if anything to make people too afraid to criticize that scientist's work, and right from day one!
I have no idea were you got that one from, but, on the other hand, I can say the same about many of your other ideas.
Originally posted by humySo far the only physicist you have named is Einstein, the most popular of all. Most of us are aware of this as well. Not many on this forum have not heard his quote that god does not play dice and Bohr's quote saying don't tell god what to do. Tell us something we don't know.
Niels Bohr.
You mentioned him in your second post.
He was certainly a physicist that would have been said to be very 'popular' but that certainly didn't make anyone afraid of criticizing his work (just his metaphysical interpretation of his work in his case ) !
But I had misread that post of yours (this is what I get from impatiently trying to read too fa ...[text shortened]... ou got that one from, but, on the other hand, I can say the same about many of your other ideas.
Originally posted by DeepThought"in general true claims are accepted and, in the end, false claims (fraudulent or just due to misunderstanding or technique) are called."
Science works within a formal language (or at least vocabulary) and a set of (accepted) empirical results. Things become interesting when the empirical results violate the formal language, the obvious example being the quantum revolution of the early 20th century. We do get the occasional bull merchant, but - hey - look at politics!!! - in general true ...[text shortened]... e guy can become a big name - the fight is to ensure that that happens on merit and not on bull.
Sure, in the end. I was very deliberate in saying "in the short term". If Edison had his way AC would have been suppressed for years, fortunately Tesla fought the jerk and we didn't have to correct it in the long term. My point is that scientists are just as flawed as anybody and popularity is a bigger factor than it should be.
3 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainNope. Can't you read? I also said "Niels Bohr". Or didn't you know he was a physicist?
So far the only physicist you have named is Einstein,
Not many on this forum have not heard his quote that god does not play dice and Bohr's quote saying don't tell god what to do. Tell us something we don't know.
I wasn't referring or even thinking about that quote. And that quote doesn't change the fact that, rightly or wrongly, MANY people, including many physicist’s, criticized Einstein's interpretation, NOT JUST Bohr. Didn't you know that? Or are you just being evasive? This is powerful evidence that you are totally wrong; a person's high popularity does very little to make people fear criticizing his work.
Originally posted by humy"MANY people, including many physicist’s, criticized Einstein's interpretation"
Nope. Can't you read? I also said "Niels Bohr". Or didn't you know he was a physicist?Not many on this forum have not heard his quote that god does not play dice and Bohr's quote saying don't tell god what to do. Tell us something we don't know.
I wasn't referring or even thinking about that quote. And that quote doesn't change the ...[text shortened]... lly wrong; a person's high popularity does very little to make people fear criticizing his work.
Sure, when Einstein was nothing more than a patent clerk and not popular at all. Bohr's criticism of Einstein was a rebuttal which can be expected and I pointed that out before you.
You said Einstein and many others criticized Bohr. Who are the others?
3 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainNONSENCE! They massively criticized him before and AFTER he gained fame. Popularity has nothing to do with it! I just don't understand were you get all this trash from.
"MANY people, including many physicist’s, criticized Einstein's interpretation"
Sure, when Einstein was nothing more than a patent clerk and not popular at all.
You said Einstein and many others criticized Bohr. Who are the others?
I am not an historian and not familiar with all the big names in science at that time so, if you want to know that, just look it up yourself! But even I know (from several TV history documentaries ) that, BOTH before and AFTER they ( “they” being Einstein and Bohr ) gained fame, there were two main camps of physicists; those that were generally on Einstein’s side when it came to interpreting quantum physics, and those that were generally on Bohr's side when it came to interpreting quantum physics. They publicly and extremely strongly disagreed (often with anger ) with each other over this then and, even today, the Einstein-Bohr arguments, or at least implicit versions of them, rages on. I happen to know the Bohr camp became particular critical when Louis de Broglie in 1927 presented the pilot wave theory which Einstein's camp agreed was valid while the Bohr camp strongly disagreed was valid;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave
I tried to google a list of scientists involved in that debate but couldn't get past the stupidity of the google search engine so, if you want to know who they were, it is up to you to look them up. Do you deny such a list exists? If so, I am sure someone here with better google search capabilities than I can put you right.
Originally posted by humy"NONSENCE! They massively criticized him before and AFTER he gained fame."
NONSENCE! They massively criticized him before and AFTER he gained fame. Popularity has nothing to do with it! I just don't understand were you get all this trash from.You said Einstein and many others criticized Bohr. Who are the others?
I am not an historian and not familiar with all the big names in science at that time so, if you ...[text shortened]... ? If so, I am sure someone here with better google search capabilities than I can put you right.
I would like a source of information of course. If it is true I would be very interested to know what the specific criticisms were. As far as the Einstein and Bohr camps going at it, they were both popular so your point is mute there and all new theories are subjected to skepticism and criticism for the most part.
Telling me to google it myself is not a particularly impressive rebuttal. You have done this several times before and never did provide a source of information in the end, nor did anyone else. It would be nice if this turns out to be an exception though. I can always hope.
Debates always rage on about certain theories that are unresolved. For example, I am in the de Broglie camp and Kazetnagorra is not. Nobody can agree on everything, but I can assure you I was never condescending or called him stupid for it.