Yeah, after spending a several years studying physics and engineering I got a good idea of what academia is all about, which made me think twice about subjecting myself to graduate school. My physics professor and boss was a friendly, religious, unconventional, and creative guy. But creative as he was, he couldn't do much with it because any wrong move would mean an end to funding, and thus an end to his career. So academia consists of those who uphold the status quo and those who cannot risk going against it. It's a self-contained system of ignorance. Now these professors I knew were very intellectual and intelligent, but I gagged at the ridiculously unproductive research they were involved in. Talk about spending five to ten years and a couple hundred thousand dollars on one specific problem most people never heard about and which, if solved, does nothing significant to help anyone. It's mostly about appearances and a paycheck these days.
But what makes me shake my head the most is how many scientists today ignore the scientific method when it comes to stuff that could really advance their understanding. Here is the scientific method:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
And here is what "scientism" does instead:
1. Rejection of observations that challenge standard theory.
2. Rationalizing away any hypotheses that challenge standard theory, without investigating or testing them.
3. Supporting the rationalization with old data, thus illogically defending the standard theory against new data.
4. Performance of only those experimental tests that confirm the old theory, and scoffing at proposals for tests that would undermine standard theory.
In other words, rather than building a hypothesis from observation, they throw out the observation because the hypothesis is "bunk" according to the status quo. So much for science. The only progress that happens in orthodox science happens by accident.
Alushe wrote:I stumped her with the following: "Who the hell is pushing the keys then? Who writes the beautiful music that the piano produces?"
That's the one thing they can't answer because math and science is limited to the domain of effects rather than cause. The ultimate cause is always a mystery, and they would rather attribute it to incalculable randomness or quantum chaos than admit the existence of consciousness. There is more to knowledge than can be gained by cold reason. Oh well, they'll find out sooner or later just how short their shortcomings are.
Acquiring fringe knowledge is like digging for diamonds in a mine field.
)