Science is a popularity contest

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"NONSENCE! They massively criticized him before and AFTER he gained fame."

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.

LOOK IT UP YOURSELF. Not that you would understand any of it; you will, of course, arrogantly think you know it all as usual but actually understand none of it. Any effort giving you a source would be completely wasted on you.

Do you deny many physicists publicly opposed each other and those physicists generally said to be 'popular'? YES OR NO?

As far as the Einstein and Bohr camps going at it, they were both popular

…. AND PUBLICLY COMPLETELY OPPOSING EACH OTHER. That's my point. This is very powerful evidence that a physicist's popularity does extremely little if not absolutely nothing to make people scared to criticize them! You are simply wrong.

Originally posted by humy
LOOK IT UP YOURSELF. Not that you would understand any of it; you will, of course, arrogantly think you know it all as usual but actually understand none of it. Any effort giving you a source would be completely wasted on you.

Do you deny many physicists publicly opposed each other and those physicists generally said to be 'popular'? YES OR NO?

[quote] ...[text shortened]... little if not absolutely nothing to make people scared to criticize them! You are simply wrong.

"Do you deny many physicists publicly opposed each other and those physicists generally said to be 'popular'? YES OR NO?"

Two popular physicists who are on more or less on equal ground (so to speak) would not be reluctant to criticize each other because of self serving reasons. I pointed that out and it went over your head. Try paying attention.
It is the less popular physicist that is reluctant to criticize the popular one. You have demonstrated why. You are the type to dismiss any unpopular physicist because of your prejudice in favor of the popular. You are the poster boy for that. The problem is there are too many narrow minded people like you in the field. Facts should be enough, but you have the notion that those without popularity have no right to challenge those that are not popular. Facts are a mere afterthought to you. You have your mind made up and don't want to be confused with facts. Furthermore, you think you are above presenting facts to make our case. You act like you are royalty that should never be challenged, especially if the facts are not convenient for you. You are constantly seeking a double standard to flee to.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I was not aware of that. Thank you for enlightening me. Your knowledge of history still impresses me.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"

Two popular physicists ... would not be reluctant to criticize each other .

NO, not just TWO. MANY. Duchess64 just told you of two more of them.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I was not aware of that. .

You are not aware of virtually any of it. Despite the history side of science being completely outside my field of expertise, even I know more about than you do and I am not the one arrogantly making out I know better about it than everyone else here and with really weird delusional ideas about it that come from god knows where -just from delusional ignorance I guess. When I don't know, I just admit it. You should do the same. Do you now accept that we know far more about it than you do? We are scientists; so before you yet again make out you know better about some part of science than we do, what are YOUR science credentials?

Originally posted by humy
NO, not just TWO. MANY. Duchess64 just told you of two more of them.

Duchess proved you wrong. Read the article. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington was more popular than Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (Chandra) and that allowed a great injustice to happen because the more popular one was able to bully the other for self serving reasons.
Here is a sentence from the article Duchess posted:

"Chandra was elated with the great Eddington's apparent approval"

After Eddington betrayed Chandra it took decades for Chandra to finally be vindicated. If you think this proves you right you are delusional.

Originally posted by humy
NO, not just TWO. MANY. Duchess64 just told you of two more of them.

Wrong. You digressed and lost track of what we were debating.

This was about Einstein and Bohr and that was also the result of a digression away from Everett and Bohr. The NOVA article I posted about Everett and Bohr and the Article Duchess posted are very similar. Bohr did to Everett what Eddington did to Chandra. Bohr didn't do it publicly like Eddington did, but that is the only significant difference.

Perhaps Duchess overlooked that and didn't intend to help make my case, but did so unwittingly. Your pointing out that Einstein was critical of Bohr was not even valid since Einstein was the most popular physicist of all. Also, you said "Einstein and many others". When I asked you who the others were I was asking who else you claimed criticized Bohr. Any example that does not include Bohr and/or Einstein is irrelevant, so Duchess did not tell me about two of them.

Your efforts to prove me wrong are so overly zealous that you have lost track of the true debate. I didn't even claim the unpopular never criticize the popular. I said they were "reluctant" to, so as you can see your habitual tendency to assume has failed you again. STOP ASSUMING!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Close enough to the same. Who are these scientists that are not particularly liked but respected?

Isaac Newton was one. He was a real assshole, for instance, his treatment of Flamsteed, the astronomer, Leibniz and Hooke was uncalled for. Granted, Newton was one of the flaming geniuses of all time but that does not excuse his behavior to other scientists.

For instance, for whatever reason, Newton didn't publish much at all about his calculus till 1711 but his arch enemy Leibniz published his first work on his independently developed calculus in 1684, not reticent at all of the criticism of others. It looks to me like Newton wanted to be the only one to be able to use his revolutionary math even though it had been independently invented by Leibniz, maybe even earlier than Newton himself, and it is Leibniz's notations we use to day not Newton's.
Newton did not even use calculus in his most famous work, "Principia". Perhaps he was afraid others would be able to make discoveries on their own if his calculus was widely available, and it wasn't for decades because Newton refused to publish for decades.

Then there was the case of Carl Sagan. A serious scientist in his own right, he correctly predicted the surface temperature of Venus before anyone else but he made the mistake of becoming popular with his show "Cosmos", the FIRST Cosmos, now the franchise has been taken over by Neil deGrasse Tyson. They wouldn't even let Sagan into the society of sciences because he was now considered a mere populariser.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Isaac Newton was one. He was a real assshole, .

If my memory serves me correctly, I once heard he had deliberately made is lectures so extremely slow and boring as to purposely put of all his students from attending them so he wouldn't have to spend any time lecturing or teaching them anything. I thought that was pretty bad thing for him to do.
Obviously then, he just didn't care a less about the education of his students and didn't take his moral responsibility to educate and help them seriously.

I also heard he was often arrogant and condescending to other people. The fact he was a real genius and knew it is obviously no excuse for that. I would not be arrogant and condescending to other people even if I was a genius, which I am not. I can name someone on this forum who is also arrogant and condescending to other people -but he simply couldn't be farther away from being a genius, even though he has already shown he is under the delusion he is by repeatedly comparing himself to various great minds including da Vinci and, unbelievably, more recently, some great physicists, even though he is no physicist! He isn't even a third-rate scientist. I have come to the conclusion I should resist the temptation to waste any more of my time on that assshole.

Originally posted by humy
If my memory serves me correctly, I once heard he had deliberately made is lectures so extremely slow and boring as to purposely put of all his students from attending them so he wouldn't have to spend any time lecturing or teaching them anything. I thought that was pretty bad thing for him to do.
Obviously then, he just didn't care a less about the education ...[text shortened]... to the conclusion I should resist the temptation to waste any more of my time on that assshole.

"I would not be arrogant and condescending to other people"

You are arrogant and condescending. I remember the first time you called me stupid merely for disagreeing with you. This was all because you ASSUMED the vast majority of climate scientists were global warming alarmists like you. That was a false assumption, but despite that you refused to admit you believed in a common myth and continued to promote it.

You have a difficult time admitting you are wrong so you insult those that expose your belief in myths. That is arrogance. Facts stopped mattering to you and you are still being condescending every chance you get.

Who compared himself to da Vinci? I know it was not me. Are you being vindictive to another person on this forum? Why are you so vindictive? Are you a woman?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"I would not be arrogant and condescending to other people"

You are arrogant and condescending. I remember the first time you called me stupid merely for disagreeing with you. This was all because you ASSUMED the vast majority of climate scientists were global warming alarmists like you. That was a false assumption, but despite that you refused to adm ...[text shortened]... ou being vindictive to another person on this forum? Why are you so vindictive? Are you a woman?

Well, that was revealing. You said and I quote "why are you so vindictive? Are you a woman?" Can you guess what is bad about that statement?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I remember the first time you called me stupid merely for disagreeing with you.

nope; I called you stupid for condescendingly making out you know better than us scientists when you don't; you merely disagreeing with me being irrelevant.
Many scientists have disagreed with me on this forum and I didn't call them stupid. Why? because, being experts in science, I know they know and understand things about it I don't and thus I know they know what they are talking about. They are QUALIFIED to disagree with me and other scientists about science. You, on the other hand, are no expert on science and, despite your completely delusional arrogance of thinking you do know better about science than other scientists here, you certainly don't; big difference.
What are your science credentials? -please list them to us so we can take you seriously...

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well, that was revealing. You said and I quote "why are you so vindictive? Are you a woman?" Can you guess what is bad about that statement?

it suggests he vindictively hates women as well as us scientists.