Academics against merit
David Solway writes:
The idea of merit has fallen on evil times, as has its corollary concept, objectivity…
In the interests of creating a society based on the axioms of “social justice”—which is really socialist justice—the principles of professional merit and scientific objectivity are dismissed by our mandarin class as forms of bigotry. As the professions, the educational institution, the political arena, and the scientific establishment engage in a process of diversification, accommodating claimants who trade on race and gender rather than ability and native endowment, merit is in the process of being replaced by outright mediocrity.
In the university, for example, no department is safe from the “inclusion and diversity” mania that is bringing higher education into the slough of disrepute—not law, not medicine, not business, not even the STEM subjects. As is, or should be, common knowledge, literature and the social sciences have long succumbed to the social justice, disparate impact, and feminist miasma that has clouded the atmosphere of thought, paving the way for pervasive academic decadence…
…[F]or most of our cultural and political power brokers, “appeals to merit” are merely “white supremacist dog-whistles.”
Solway’s article is excellent and I suggest you read the whole thing. It describes a process I first noted and vocally protested when I went back to graduate school in the early 1990s, a movement spearheaded by feminists, the left in general, and minority-studies academics, among others. My protests barely made a ripple, as you might imagine. At any rate, the whole thing was entirely too far gone already, having taken root outside of my awareness when I was busy doing other things like tending to family matters.
Another big turning point—at least, in terms of the public—was what happened to Larry Summers at Harvard in 2005. At the time I wrote this:
Larry Summers is under fire for daring to suggest that research be done into whether there are biological differences that account, at least in part, for the paucity of women at the pinnacle of science.
…[The reaction to Summers’ remarks] is a case where feelings seem to have triumphed over reason. That academics–and scientists, at that–would allow this to happen is not a good sign. Whatever happened to the Enlightment? If Galileo were to return at this point, he might be in grave danger again–at least, if he were to suggest that the earth didn’t revolve around women.
In my own experience in an academic environment during the ’90s, after decades of being away, I was shocked at how far the PC police had come in stifling academic freedom. It seemed the new criterion for censure was whether a remark had offended someone. However careful the professor might be to couch the remark with qualifications, however delicately it was stated, if it offended the tender sensibilities of anyone in the audience, the professor was in trouble.
My guess is that therapists bear part of the responsibility for this. The popularization of therapy and its portrayal in legions of self-help books and talk shows has helped foster an idea that, since all feelings are in some way valid (if only in the intrapersonal sense), therefore people have a right to demand that their feelings never be hurt. This is a distortion of what true therapy is all about, but it’s a popular one–even among some therapists, unfortunately.
So, Larry Summers seems to have stepped into this particular pile of steaming do-do. The first reports of the reaction to his remarks contain the following gem from MIT biology professor Nancy Hopkins, “I felt I was going to be sick…My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow. I was extremely upset.”
I assume that, as a scientist, Ms. Hopkins had other, more rationally-based objections to Summer’s remarks. But I have yet to read any that make sense. How could anyone have a rational objection to Summer’s call for research into this question? Unless that person were afraid of the truth.
That was fourteen years ago. And yes, they are afraid of the truth, so they must twist it and bury it and call truth a mere function of white male oppression. The truth is that maybe, just maybe, there are some differences that account for the great representation of men in the very top rung of scienctists. That doesn’t mean that a woman can’t aspire to and even achieve similar heights, but it does mean that women just might remain a lot more scarce there.
But those who are afraid of the truth cannot abide that situation and feel that jettisoning the entire idea of merit is worth it in order to equalize the numbers, not the playing field but the score. And we will all suffer because, as Solway puts it:
[Tomas Brage, director of the undergraduate program of studies in physics at Lund University in Sweden] seems blissfully unaware that, aside from unadulterated brilliance, meritocratic traits and criteria are precisely those that STEM demands if it is to prosper. He concludes: “Clearly, the subject of all physics is affected by the background of the researcher, teacher and student, and it follows that a gender perspective is needed.” No, it manifestly does not follow. The individual’s practice of physics may indeed be affected by “the background of the researcher,” but the subject of physics is not. The laws of nature are the laws of nature and must be dealt with on their own terms. Physics is physics—nature’s handmaiden, not feminism’s.
Hear, hear! But there is a long tradition of ignoring or even attempting to defy the laws of nature if they interfere with a deeply-held belief system. Leftism, feminism, progressivism, all of them have taken on the nature of belief systems that have a fundamental opposition to the values of the Enlightenment. In this, they are part of an ancient struggle that will probably never be ended.
“Clearly, the subject of all physics is affected by the background of the researcher, teacher and student, and it follows that a gender perspective is needed.”
Is he agreeing with the Nazis that there is such a thing as “Jewish science”?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/
RE: “The idea of merit has fallen on evil times, as has its corollary concept, objectivity…”
Old and busted: “From each according to his ability.”
New hotness: “From each according to their position on the intersectional SJW victimhood scale.
RE: “How could anyone have a rational objection to Summer’s call for research into this question? Unless that person were afraid of the truth.”
In the post-moderist age, we have no need for rationality, objectivity, or Truth. Such outdated concepts are tools used by the patiarchy to oppress marginalized groups.
“Postmodernism is a broad movement that developed in the mid- to late 20th century across philosophy, the arts, architecture, and criticism and that marked a departure from modernism. … Consequently, common targets of postmodern critique include universalist notions of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress.” — Wikipedia
Looking back on the last 30 years, I think we’re all boiled frogs.
Well, feminists are nowhere to be found as males transgendering to females now compete , and win, athletic events formerly reserved for females.
After all, feminism has degenerated from obtaining equal rights across the board for females, into asserting that gender/sex differences are merely social constructs.
Feminists must be really proud of this.
Also, female athletes who lose sporting events to “pseudo-females” surely feel just fine that sex differences are being abolished in their sporting events and that they are in the vanguard seeking real social justice.
The logical extension of this is the elimination of women’s events and male events. There will just be, say, just sporting events which anybody can enter.
So, in lieu of a “men’s ” basketball or ice hockey team, and a “female” basketball team or ice hockey team, there will be only a basketball team and a ice hockey team.
And how will the players be selected?? Through a conventional try-out process. Yep, females who wish to compete will feel really great about this too.
No more Title 9 required.
One can only conclude that radical feminists not only hate men, but have a white hot (should I have said, black hot?) hatred of ordinary heterosexual women. I assume here, of course, that the majority of radical feminists are self-hating, perpetually angry, frustrated, lesbians.
Two recent articles on Minding the Campus are highly recommended, both by excellent writers with much experience of the academic world; one is written by Philip Carl Salzman and entitled “What Happened to our Universities”, the other written by Bruce Bawer and entitled “The Campaign to Indoctrinate- not Educate- Students.”
“The laws of nature are the laws of nature and must be dealt with on their own terms. Physics is physics—nature’s handmaiden, not feminism’s.”
The “laws of nature” is a poetic expression of the operative principles of the external reality within which we all exist.
As such they are inviolable, though consequence may be delayed to the point where denial of their very existence is entertained.
“And yes, they are afraid of the truth, so they must twist it and bury it and call truth a mere function of white male oppression.”
You cannot be afraid of something that you don’t believe to be real. Willful denial is an implicit admission of an inability to cope with a reality viewed as intolerable.
Willful denial on the societal level is, ultimately unsustainable. Whether through internal collapse or external conquest, reality will prevail.
Everyone knows that affirmative action means blacks and minorities are admitted to school with lower grades than Caucasians and Asians, they don’t do as well in school and they graduate with lower grades. Potential employers know this, so affirmative action hasn’t done blacks any favors. I used to work as a contractor at a major Army command. They had a large number of “people of color” way out of proportion to their percentage of the population. A little research uncovered the statistic that about 1/3 of black employment is with the government. Local, state and federal governments are WPA for blacks. What was amusing was that the senior executive service was white as rice.
Postmodernism is just another term for communism.
Academics against merit? As the philosopher, Kinison, once remarked:
Rock Against Drugs, what a name. Somebody was high when they came up with that title. It’s like Christians Against Christ.
–Sam Kinison (comedian)
Geoffrey Britain:
If you really don’t believe it’s real, you can’t be afraid of it. But you can indeed be afraid of something you say you don’t believe to be real. That’s why you say it’s not real and try to convince yourself (and others) that’s it not real—because you’re afraid it really is real, and you’re afraid of what that would mean.
John Tyler:
Actually, some feminists are indeed to be found in the fight over whether transgendered people born as male should be allowed to compete in women’s sports. I don’t know what proportion of feminists are engaged in this fight, and in the main so far they are being overpowered and shouted down by transgender activists, but some feminists are definitely trying to fight it.
I wrote about the conflict here as well as here. It involves athletic competitions but also lesbians who feel their spaces are being invaded by transgendered people born as men. It is actually quite a heated conflict.
John Tyler:
More here on the subject.
There is definitely a link between these products of ideology and Lysenkoism.
As someone noted above, this is quite similar to the Nazi concept that there were such things as ‘Jewish science’ or ‘Jewish math’, contrasted with Aryan science and math.
“Leftism, feminism, progressivism, all of them have taken on the nature of belief systems that have a fundamental opposition to the values of the Enlightenment.”
I think that whereas Marxism is a bastard child of the Enlightenment, Fascism…especially in its Nazi incarnation..was/is explicitly counter-Enlightenment. Although today’s Left does have some Marxist attributes, I think it overall is closer to Fascism.
On this topic, I was recently fuming while reading last month’s Smithsonian. A few pages of this issue were dedicated to the topic of “notable” and/or “historic” women.
“Wikipedia’s gender imbalance reflects the site’s contributors, who are about 90 percent male, but it is also a result of its ‘notability’ standard…” says a (female) college historian. “… Notability is not a neutral concept.” It then goes on to mention women doing various things while being female. I have two points to make here. First, assuming that women are not barred from contributing for being female, why are 90 percent of Wikipedia contributors male? That says something about women … not a gender bias of Wikipedia. Second, if you can demonstrate that females are omitted while males with identical accomplishments are covered, that would be something to address, But being the “first woman” to do things (or in some cases, just being “a” woman doing things) that hundreds or thousands of men – most of whom are not in Wikipedia – also did, is – rightfully – not notable to a general audience. “Alice Marval qualified as a physician at a time when women were often barred from the profession,” we are told. This is interesting if Marval is your great grandmother, but outside of a passing reference in a history text on the practice of medicine in America, this is not notable, if she did nothing special other than qualify to practice medicine – like countless people who weren’t female.
Smithsonian discusses national guidelines for teaching social studies. We are told that 178 of 737 historic figures were found to be female. Smithsonian admits: “Some of the disparity is that men have long dominated government,” but adds: “Even so, there are curious omissions. For instance, none of the [state] guidelines explicitly calls for learning about Rep. Jeannette Rankin of Montana, who in 1916 became the first woman elected to federal office.”
I am a woman. But this sort of lefty idiocy drives me nuts. If I came up with a list of the 750 most important historic figures in US history, Rankin doesn’t make the cut. Doing things while being female doesn’t make that thing more special than doing it while being male.
They will all get A’s, and it will continue until the bridges collapse, airplanes fall out of the sky (perhaps already happening…my take on the MCAS is that the millennials are starting to have an impact at Boeing), and the electric grid fails to supply the electric demands….only then will someone realize what they have sown and now reaped. As Montgomery Scott said to Captain Kirk, “Cap’n, I canna change the laws of physics!”
neo,
“you can indeed be afraid of something you say you don’t believe to be real.”
Certainly. Willful denial first starts with lying to oneself about the truth of the matter.
physicsguy,
“only then will someone realize what they have sown and now reaped.”
Rarely with people in willful denial do they later accept responsibility for what they’ve sown. Instead they look for a scapegoat. It’s a moral defect and rare indeed is the moral coward who can squarely face their cowardice and then publicly admit to it. By definition, they lack the moral character to do so. Willful denial is flight from reality and to paraphrase; ‘the coward flees from where no man pursueth’…
“Rarely with people in willful denial do they later accept responsibility for what they’ve sown.”
I agree that this is what we’ll see. It will be our fault: because we exist, or because we “wanted” things to fail because we predicted this obvious outcome. It is never the fault of their bad ideas and policies.
The success of capitalism is directly related to the reality of profit-driven meritocracy. The elite college admissions scandals show that elite colleges have long ago given up teaching based on meritocracy — now it’s “selection”. For those who are most likely to be rich, famous, future donors or poster-boys & poster-girls for any cause that increase donors.
Top management is increasingly a mix of merit and boot-licking, with boot-licking increasing in power as the industry consolidates into fewer competitors.
More men are CEOs, and far more men are homeless. And drug addicts, and alcoholics, and suicides. The forms of the bell curves are different, with more men at the top and the bottom. More men get perfect 800 SAT math scores; and more men are mentally retarded.
The secret discrimination against pro-life folk and Republicans in colleges, going on for decades, is now expanding throughout the elite of society. It’s terrible.
Feminists for equal opportunity need to be fighting against the Dems who favor equal outcomes. Reality doesn’t result in both.
tiny typo ‘mean’ — but it does men that women just might remain a lot more scarce there.
I was especially annoyed at the discussion in the article about feminists attacking physics. My two best female friends from my childhood and college years earned top-level physics PhDs and performed at top levels in their fields. They did it by being brilliant and doing the work.
No Raise or promotion for 15 years under that kind of rubric combined with others technically not legal… merit is not used its vague and what really counts is if your in the in crowd with the right school, and friends… which is sad… cause the patients suffer and the costs skyrocket..
From the article to which Neo links above, at 5:04 p.m.:
Gosh! Women are even dumber than I thought, and men aren’t nearly as smart as I thought! 😆
(All present company excepted, of course.)
In this, they are part of an ancient struggle that will probably never be ended.
yeah, humans are immortal, and can afford big mistakes….
you speak like a god, and forget that at the end of all this is extinction…
fecundity too small and cohesion too poor to survive…
its already done…
Its one of those things that took root and you didn’t notice despite focusing on the end result of such..
Funny part is that such who deny it wont see it till its way way past any action
Such a twist, no matter how packaged or dire or truthful, would never be possible
Its hard for people to ‘get’ certain areas of research, its hard for those who should know better to get or understand enough to ‘see’ whats going on in plain sight… but look at the personal benefit if one cant see it…
“We calculate that in 2012, women in their twenties had births at a pace that would lead to 948 births per 1,000 women, by far the slowest pace of any generation of young women in U.S. history… Report from urban institute
in 2016, there were just 62 live births per 1,000 women of childbearing age. That’s a one percent decrease from 2015, and the lowest rate on record. Blame the millennials, say demographers — they’re not having kids. – foreignpolicy.com 2017
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Fertility_rate_world_map_2.png
Will The Fertility Rate Recover? Probably Not, A New Study Says
It’s not news any longer that the fertility rate in the United States is dropping, and no one’s really sure what the end result of this trend will be, given that the expected recovery in fertility rates alongside economic recovery has not played out.
course not…
Over 50 years and three generations of telling young females what?
With women now able to be drafted, and in miltary, a conflict will seal the deal and make the end a fait accompli
he law requiring men — but not women — to register for a U.S. military draft is unconstitutional The National Commission on Military, National and Public Service is expected to release a report next year on recommendations for the Selective Service System
I don’t know about science, in general. For engineering though, there is a specific test that measures a person’s ability to visualize in three dimensions. It is called the Rod and Frame Test. In order to successfully complete an Engineering Degree,typically, a student must score in the top 90th percentile on this test. Of all humans, there are ten times as many men in this subset as women. This is also the ratio of men to women graduating as engineers. This has been true since the eighties and it continues till today.
Now, we can dig deeper and discover the exact genes that control this particular aspect of intelligence, but the existence of this difference between men and women has been studied and documented since the sixties. So far as I can see or have experiened, sexism is not preventing women from entering the engineering field.
Artfldgr:
Of course I don’t mean that it literally will never end in the literal sense of going on past the end of humanity, earth, the universe, time, space, whatever it is one believes will ultimately will come to an end. But human beings have certain repetitive themes and conflicts, and in human history they tend to go in cycles and repeat themselves although usually with very different details.
The struggle that will never end in this case, the one I was referring to, was between science and emotion, between facts and wishes, between those who would follow logic and those who want to toss logic out because it doesn’t lead them where they want to go.
One of those things that seems as though it will never end is the truth of this statement by Karl Popper:
And who will they blame when the bridges fall down? Sexist steel?
Also – Nancy Hopkins: “I didn’t know whether to faint or throw up…” thereby confirming the case.
My two best female friends from my childhood and college years earned top-level physics PhDs and performed at top levels in their fields. They did it by being brilliant and doing the work.
Kate: A new-fangled notion! But not without its suasion.
I can’t believe we are going backwards this way. It makes me wonder how the Enlightenment ever got off the ground.
In Venezuela, the electrical power generation and transmission system has failed. It was partly due to underinvestment, but also because all of the engineers and technicians with real skills left. The government wanted loyalty to the party, instead of technical merit. And, that is what they got…
Currently I’m taking Linear Algebra. It’s one of the early STEM doors through which scientists, mathematicians, programmers and engineers must pass. Pretty cool stuff if you’re into that sort of thing.
Out of twenty students in my class there are only two women and one black. You can’t win if you don’t play. However, STEM isn’t for everyone and I don’t blame anyone for not wanting it.
My niece is plenty smart. She even likes computers. If she got a CompSci degree, she would be recruited in a hot minute. I’ve bought her several computers, including a Raspberry Pi, in case she wanted to pop the hood and see how computers really work.
But while she’s a diva when it comes to using smart phones and laptops, she’s doesn’t have the passion, the obsession that the young guys who brought us the personal computer revolution possessed to learn how computers work and make them do tricks.
She’s headed towards a degree in business or accounting. I say, fine. Tech is actually a hard career even if you like it. The hours are often long. Much of the work is pretty mindless. The competition is fierce. Your professional knowledge is constantly eroding. If you get pigeon-holed, it’s hard to break out. If you get old, it’s hard to get another job.
I think women avoid tech because if they’ve got the brains to do tech, they can do other things which pay better and are more stable, social and satisfying.
“Learn to code” is a fun jibe but it’s really not a solution for most people. My, how I rattle on.
Robert Arvanitis:
“Who will they blame when the bridges fall down?”
I know the answer to that question. They will blame people like you and I. They will claim that it was the oligarchs and the ultra-right that sabotaged them. They will arrest you and torture you for your confession.
They will accept no responsibility for anything that goes wrong, knowing that they will never run out of scapegoats.
I escaped from Venezuela, and I know very well how this movie ends. But, before it happens here, I will have moved on. I don’t need to see it again.
huxley,
Linear Algebra… Uffff!
“…bridges…”
It is well known that gravity is an uber-white, patriarchal, capitalist, colonialist, Zionist, oppressive construct meant to keep down all minorities and women. To keep the powerful in power. To enable oppression to flourish.
One must fight this grotesque, age-old injustice wherever it rears its ugly white head, in order to liberate the downtrodden and the oppressed from such sinister efforts by the powerful to keep the powerless in chains.
One must resist the powerful and rich whites with all one’s might, with all one’s soul.
Viva la resistencia!
The most scandalous was not the treatment of Larry Summers, but the treatment of James D. Watson, a founder of modern genetics, Nobel laureate and the most famous scientist of the 20 century. This was unforgivable.
In my view, the oppressed are not oppressed enough, their arrogance and hubris are the most important hurdles to the advancement of the human race. True meritocracy implies much more stark inequality than is now possible and needed for the efficient rule of the best and brightest. No civilization can survive too prolonged domination of mediocracy. This is the Achilles heel of the American political culture with its unhealthy obsession by equality.
“Leftism, feminism, progressivism, all of them have taken on the nature of belief systems that have a fundamental opposition to the values of the Enlightenment.”
Neo, you can add to this roster of belief systems in fundamental opposition to the values of Enlightenment also egalitarianism and a worship of democracy and popular opinion as embodiments of the Truth.
Scientific tradition, consensus, orthodoxy have produced the religion of science: scientism. Or in other words, just another new age fad cult created by humans for humans.
It is no surprise that the kids are now questioning the globe in their classrooms and various other things. 33% of a survey of 18-24 year olds no longer believe in the scientific orthodoxy concerning geoscience or the shape of the Earth. That’s even higher, presumably, for those younger than 18 year olds. This is due to a number of factors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBhi89eyZ0E
Not even gonna bother linking the ABC clown news networks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yw5dFosqcU
Australians got it compressed down pretty far.
Leftists are even triggered by this subject. One would think they would be the first ones on the moon bat boat… but because Hussein said that “We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth society”, Leftists are strangely triggered and hostile to Flat Earth theorists.
I have had a number of conversations with moon bat Leftists, and they will sooner or later bring up Flat Earth, even if I do not.
This is you, right now, 2019, America. Not something foreign ragheads can be bombed into submission to erase. This is All You.
I will give a recent example of what happened here. Physics guy, a teacher of physics presumably at a university of more than average credentials, doesn’t even understand the flaws of Newton’s theory of gravity. He does not know, because he was not taught, that Newton failed to resolve fundamental problems in his theory even after he invented 50% of calculus to deal with it: he never resolved the THree Body Problem of Gravity/Calculus.
Sergey, you have the wrong article there. You said, “popular opinion as the embodiment[s] of the Truth.” It’s “of their Truth.”
There’s no objective truth any more.
“Physics guy, a teacher of physics presumably at a university of more than average credentials, doesn’t even understand the flaws of Newton’s theory of gravity. He does not know, because he was not taught, that Newton failed to resolve fundamental problems in his theory even after he invented 50% of calculus to deal with it: he never resolved the THree Body Problem of Gravity/Calculus.”
To quote Reagan, “there you go again”. Of course I understand the issue of the 3-body problem; of course Newton’s theory has flaws, which is why GR came about. There is not one theory in physics that is 100% perfect. That’s why we continuously try to find those flaws and develop better descriptions.
Ymarsakar, you really need to stop this, it’s getting boring how much you show your own ignorance by continuously attacking me.
I think that the political corruption of science is he most consequential tragedy of the last fifty years of American history. Our entire economy, even agriculture, is dependent on science and engineering. To the extent that our society works at all, it depends on the recognition of merit and ability.
For decades, our universities have been indoctrinating students with assertions that there’s no such thing as objective truth, that there must be a female mathematics and an African physics. After we’re all forced to accept the consequences of this corruption, what will be left? What will still work? Google and China are trying to build an international totalitarian surveillance state dependent on sophisticated engineering and science. Who will be allowed to operate it?
What has happened in recent decades is that ALL fields of knowledge have been or are being turned into “social studies.”
In the UK, the GCSE science curriculum, studied by all pupils from 14 to 16, was changed in 2005:
“Instead of learning science, pupils will “learn about the way science and scientists work within society”. They will “develop their ability to relate their understanding of science to their own and others’ decisions about lifestyles”, the QCA said. They will be taught to consider how and why decisions about science and technology are made, including those that raise ethical issues, and about the “social, economic and environmental effects of such decisions”.
“They will learn to “question scientific information or ideas” and be taught that “uncertainties in scientific knowledge and ideas change over time”, and “there are some questions that science cannot answer, and some that science cannot address”. Science content of the curriculum will be kept “lite”. Under “energy and electricity”, pupils will be taught that “energy transfers can be measured and their efficiency calculated, which is important in considering the economic costs and environmental effects of energy use”.
I think that many–if not most—“educators”, who search endlessly for “relevance”, are themselves people who place no value on learning for its own sake, and can’t imagine that anyone else would.
In ‘A Preface to Paradise Lost’, C S Lewis contrasts the characters of Adam and Satan, as developed in Milton’s work:
“Adam talks about God, the Forbidden tree, sleep, the difference between beast and man, his plans for the morrow, the stars and the angels. He discusses dreams and clouds, the sun, the moon, and the planets, the winds and the birds. He relates his own creation and celebrates the beauty and majesty of Eve…Adam, though locally confined to a small park on a small planet, has interests that embrace ‘all the choir of heaven and all the furniture of earth.’ Satan has been in the heaven of Heavens and in the abyss of Hell, and surveyed all that lies between them, and in that whole immensity has found only one thing that interests Satan. And that “one thing” is, of course, Satan himself…his position and the wrongs he believes have been done to him. Satan’s monomaniac concern with himself and his supposed rights and wrongs is a necessity of the Satanic predicament…”
One need not believe in a literal Satan, or for that matter be religious at all, to see the force of this. There is indeed something Satanic about a person who has no interests other than themselves.
There is no flaws in Newton’s theory of gravity, these equations are correct up to precision of practically possible measurements. The fact that there is no general formula for 3 body problem, is just a fact of nature, not a flaw of the theory. Those who expect science to have the answers to any stupid question people can ask, just do not understand what science is about. Some problems just have no solutions, and this is not any flaw of theory but the fact of nature, too. The distribution of primes also have no general formula, but this does not mean our theory of numbers is any bit flawed. It is not complete, of course, but nobody in his right senses demands completeness of our knowledge.
Ymarsakar, you really need to stop this, it’s getting boring how much you show your own ignorance by continuously attacking me.
When you have an argument that you cannot contest and of which your only previous recent response was “you need to get an education”, thus confusing disagreement with ignorance, this is considered a personal attack because your ego is feeling threatened. This has to do with your upbringing, status, work, and life.
Here’s a clue. Being wrong isn’t going to kill you PG. Thus when I state that your beliefs are wrong and disagree with your scientific orthodoxy, this is not an attack on your ego, although you take it as a hit due to your insecurities.
In previous conversations with Catholics, they perceived my statements and comments about the Albigensians and the secret and overt child predations of their human built church organization, to be a personal attack against either them or their Catholicism religion.
The truth is an attack on your dogma if your dogma cannot accept the truth or argue against it. They don’t even try to argue against it. There’s the hint.
Sergey on April 9, 2019 at 10:38 am at 10:38 am said:
There is no flaws in Newton’s theory of gravity, these equations are correct up to precision of practically possible measurements. The fact that there is no general formula for 3 body problem, is just a fact of nature, not a flaw of the theory.
This, although wrong, is still an argument, I would make the observation.
It is in fact, not a fact of that nature that the general solution for springs, bridge resonance, and other physical phenomenon are non existent in calculus math. These physical phenomenon exist and thus also exist in calculus, tensor or otherwise. Although the reverse is not true, what is true in theoretical mathematics may not be in true in this dimension or other dimensions. Super string, dark matter, zero point Dirac sea phenomenon, quantum entanglement, etc etc.
What matters is thus physical replication via the scientific method. If there is a physical phenomenon and it cannot be physically replicated or tested nor does it agree with the mathematical models because those models don’t exist due to lacking a general equation, then instead of saying it is flawless, the normal scientific hypothesis is that it is Full of Flaws. A peer review would trash that experimental data, if it wasn’t for scientific orthodoxy priming the pump, as it did with Global Climate Change.
Einstein already showed and patched the flaws in Newton’s classical physics.
Of course I understand the issue of the 3-body problem; of course Newton’s theory has flaws, which is why GR came about. There is not one theory in physics that is 100% perfect. That’s why we continuously try to find those flaws and develop better descriptions.
That’s not an argument. It’s a form of logical fallacy via authority. Such as when you said I was wrong because/hence I should get educated (indoctrinated). This is based on the premise that you or physics orthodoxy have the answers and are right, and Ymar is wrong due to ignorance or a mistaken impression.
Let’s turn the facts loose and open. Whether you understand something is not for you, a teacher, to proclaim. It is for me to Question, in the Socratic method, and test. If you lack the answers, then you do not understand, even if you claim you understand.
You have no answers and no counter. If what you state is correct that Einstein resolved the flaws in Newton’s theory, then why do NASA telemetry and orbital calculations utilize the Newtonian method of adding 2 vectors up and then adding them up to the third one? This can indeed be done using arithmetic addition, which avoids calculus, or it can use a two body calculus problem in sequence to resolve.
But they are not using a Three Body Equation nor are they using Einstein’s equations. The excuse is that Einstein only applies to near light speed calculations. Yet the Three Body Problem exists whether you are near light speed or near zero.
The fundamental theory of gravity by newton is that gravity from any mass affects every other mass. General Relativity reduces a 3 body n + problem into a 2 Body Problem. You have not addressed the Three Body Problem in physics. Because you were never taught this and cannot do so mathematically using calculus or the theory of gravity. You can only presuppose that everything on Earthi s a two body problem, as high schoolers learned in the lowest grade of physics class.
There’s a bullet, and the Earth.
The Sun Moon Earth system is a Three Body Problem. Mathematically, it must be chaotic. We are not traveling near light speed either, thus Einstein’s equations are either avoided or just ignored.
NASA has super computers so Einstein’s equations are not necessarily too onerous, especialyl since they lacked such things in 1960s to get to the moon, shall we say.
And of course, once you get through the ego destruction of dealing with Newton by using Einstein, what hits next, which cannot be countered using ego based scientism, is that dark matter and energy is another patch on Einstein’s relativity.
The galaxies are spinning at either the wrong rates or there is not enough matter/gravity to hold the galaxies together based upon Einstein’s math. Einstein, not Newton.
So who is going to fix Einstein’s flaws?
or are you reduced to saying Newton and Einstein’s classical physics flaws are the result of Ymar not understanding classical and quantum physics again.
Physics instructors even at above average universities, do not understand about Newton’s Three Body Problem flaw in the theory of gravity. They have not done the leg work necessary. They have accepted as wisdom, what Newton, Einstein, and others preceding them have done. This is a form of copy catting, not comprehension. Regurgitation of information yes, but not comprehension of information.
It was extremely important to Newton’s theory about gravity for him to validate the Three Body Problem and obtain a General Solution. He created Half of Calculus to do that. Did you create half of Mathematical Calculus, Physics? Don’t think so. Maybe you think you understand that but you were not the creator.
Wow… this comment thread went off the rails.
The Crackpot Index
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
John Baez
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:
A -5 point starting credit.
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
5 points for each mention of “Einstien”, “Hawkins” or “Feynmann”.
10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)
10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don’t know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
10 points for each statement along the lines of “I’m not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations”.
10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is “only a theory”, as if this were somehow a point against it.
10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn’t explain “why” they occur, or fails to provide a “mechanism”.
10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a “paradigm shift”.
20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it “suppresses original thinkers” or saying that I misspelled “Einstein” in item 8.)
20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the “The Evans Field Equation” when your name happens to be Evans.)
20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
20 points for each use of the phrase “hidebound reactionary”.
20 points for each use of the phrase “self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy”.
30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
40 points for claiming that the “scientific establishment” is engaged in a “conspiracy” to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
© 1998 John Baez
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu
Heh. 😆
Newton believed that the world was deterministic, just as all philosophers of his time. Physics that can not demonstrate this feature was flawed to him. Now we know that physical determinism is impossible in principle, so his motivation in developing calculus and general solution for the Three Body Problem should not be relevant to us: his achievements stand on their own merits, even if the ultimate goal of their creator turned out to be the dead end. The same is true for Einstein, whose efforts to create Unified Field Theory were in vain.
Cornflour, as Joan Baez’s father was a UCB physics professor (as a high school student, I had seen a physics film he narrated), I wondered if there was a family connection with John Baez.Correct. John Baez and Joan Baez are first cousins.
so his motivation in developing calculus and general solution for the Three Body Problem should not be relevant to us
It is quite relevant in the US since teachers and professors get triggered when this topic is raised and challenged.
The scientism habit of going the “we have 97% consensus on Global Warming facts, so shut up you climate denier” is not exactly helpful to Western progress on the technological, moral, or political front.
Much of the dead end technologies having to do with unapplicable gravity control is that the fundamental theories, the basics, are wrong. Newton’s laws only apply to two bodies and one of them has to be the Earth. His math is not used for spinning galaxies or anything approaching light speed. There’s one type of physics for the galaxy and universe, another type of physics for Earth, and still another type of physics for the solar system.
Classical physics have had to create habitual double think confirmation bias to get through all these decades.
We have quantum levitation but not gravity control or inertial canceling. There’s a huge difference between an engineering applied physics field that is based on sound testable math and phenomenon, vs classical physics love affair with Newton and Einstein’s theories about gravity.
The same is true for Einstein, whose efforts to create Unified Field Theory were in vain.
Every force in physics has been unified, except gravity. Ever wonder why that is? Not something classical physicists like to talk about, although quantum physicists like Feynman were slightly more open to these fields. Feynman was at least better than Hawkings on this point, given Hawkings statement that Higgs Boson, he bet his whatever, did not exist, before CERN experiment verified Higgs Boson at least.
http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html
Weird science versus revolutionary science
While it’s true that at least 99% of revolutionary announcements from the fringes of science are just as bogus as they seem, we cannot dismiss every one of them without investigation. If we do, then we’ll certainly take our place among the ranks of scoffers who accidentally helped delay numbers of major scientific discoveries throughout history. Beware, for many discoveries such as powered flight and drifting continents today only appear sane and acceptable because we have such powerful hindsight. These same advancements were seen as obviously a bunch of disgusting lunatic garbage during the years they were first discovered.
In science, pursuing revolutionary advancements can be like searching for diamonds hidden in sewage. It’s a shame that the realms of questionable ideas contain “diamonds” of great value. This makes the of judging crazy theories far more difficult. If crazy discoveries were always bogus, then we’d have good reason to reject them without investigation. However, since the diamonds exist, we must distrust our first impressions. Sometimes the “obvious” craziness turns out to be a genuine cutting-edge discovery. As with the little child questioning the emperor’s clothing, sometimes (but rarely, of course,) the entire scientific community is misguided and incompetent. Sometimes only the lone voice of the maverick scientist is telling the truth.
Below is a list of scientists who were reviled for their crackpottery, only to be later proven correct. Today’s science texts are dishonest to the extent that they hide these huge mistakes made by the scientific community. They rarely discuss the embarrassing acts of intellectual suppression which were directed at the following researchers by their colleagues. And… after wide reading, I’ve never encountered any similar list.[1] This is very telling.
“When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.” – Jonathan Swift
I estimate that one would need Mensa IQ and above to understand most of the serious issues I tend to talk about. Gringo’s abilities are sufficient, since he is Mensa level and his previous work justifies this capability.
And for some of those issues, not even Prometheus IQ is sufficient, judging by how a former President reacted when he couldn’t understand what I was talking about on a particular subject. I thought that a bit ironic.
It is culture shock. IQ is disabled by culture shock, traditions, and double think cognitive dissonance.
Ymarsakar said,
“I estimate that one would need Mensa IQ and above to understand most of the serious issues I tend to talk about.”
Translation: If you don’t understand me, it’s because you just aren’t smart enough.
Normally, this sort of condescension is discouraged in grade school through school yard justice, i.e.: The offensive twits usually get the snot beat out of them until they learn to keep such observations to themselves. Sadly, some people grow up too protected and don’t benefit from these lessons.
Pingback:Saturday Links | 357 Magnum