Talk to me 20 minutes about physics and it will cost you 50$

  • I just have found this by occasion and could not stay neutral :).
    Link - http://backreaction.blogspot.de/p/talk-to-physicist.html
    Modern type of academic scientist, a prominent physicist (participating in discussion of the Soul of Science - https://www.quantamagazine.org…he-boundaries-of-science/) and blogger suggests – talk to me 20 minutes about physics and it will cost you 50$ . Good business! Other guys are more accurate and selling their stories from textbooks in the form of books.
    This is a nice example of the modern academic scientist – just business :). And, you are talking about new discoveries in LENR with such academic people, and trying to convince them to change their theories? It will kill their business.

  • backreaction.blogspot.de/p/talk-to-physicist.html
    Modern type of academic scientist, a prominent physicist (participating in discussion of the Soul of Science - quantamagazine.org/20151216-ph…he-boundaries-of-science/)


    Definitely worth the read, particularly for those who have read and/or thought some about the philosophy of science. Only one particularly erroneous interpretation I see in the speculation there.... that being a misread by Massimo Pigliucci of CUNY, of the implications of "falsification" in Popper's sense. Proving something false is not Popper's point of what constitutes or does not constitute science. Popper's point was that a theory, to be part of science, must be falsifiable, that is there must some conceivable test and evidentiary result that, if found and confirmed, would disprove that particular theory..... otherwise the theory / hypothesis is not scientific, but instead belongs elsewhere, i.e. it is not falsifiable.

  • Quote from Valeriy Tarasov: “ backreaction.blogspot.de/p/talk-to-physicist.html
    Modern type of academic scientist, a prominent physicist (participating in discussion of the Soul of Science - quantamagazine.org/20151216-ph…he-boundaries-of-science/)…


    About the conference, for me it is interesting by the fact it was organized. It is indication of physics crisis. And, one more thing is that if physicists cannot explain something they simply use probability approach. Before, on this way quantum mechanics was born, now they would like to substitute the scientific method itself, and actually as in quantum mechanics, they are trowing away the principle of causality. No experiments to verify the theory - no causality - no science.