🚀 go-pugleaf

I was going to stay out of this; Jon Noring's post needed a response
and I think Thomas Kettenring's was fine, but on second thought I've
had it up to here with Sarfatti, so I'll put in my 2c as well.

In article <1993Jan12.003513.2298@rhrk.uni-kl.de>, kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
> In article <1993Jan8.194315.20491@netcom.com>, noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
>>As a scientist myself,
>>having worked at three of the top Government labs in this country (SNLL,
>>LBL, and LLNL), I can say that the egalitarian view that scientists, as a
>>group, *use* the scientific method in their approach to new ideas (or new
>>"paradigms"), is not what I observe in real life.  There are notable
>                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>exceptions, but by and large scientists are just as driven by emotions and
>>personal gain, rather than reason, as the general population.
> Of course your observations are objective and not coloured by your opinions.

I second this view that Jon seems to have his own "agenda" that may be
biasing his views on those evil, mind-fixed-in-concrete orthodox
scientists. (:-).  Sorry, but the scientists I know and work with are
willing and open to speculation; but not very tolerant of what I think of
as aimless speculation, ie. undriven by some/any justification.
It's fine to have an open mind, but it shouldn't be so open that your
brains fall out.

>>To cite one example among many, all one has to do is to go over to sci.physics
>>and see how some of the physicists have labeled Dr. Jack Sarfatti (who knew
>>Feynman quite well) as a "quack" because of his approach to quantum mechanics,
>>yet it is clear that he knows what he is talking about and presents his
>>speculations in a way that can be critiqued using the scientific method (he
>>gives his basic postulates, and then uses understandable mathematical 
>>development to develop his theory).
> As I understand it, he is trying to lay theoretical foundations for
> precognition, which is not - as far as I know - experimentally shown to exist
> but mainly practiced by quacks.  (It's fine that somebody does that, and I'm
> not saying he should stop.  I'm only adding more context you left out.)

Furthermore, Sarfatti took forever (ie >25 posts) to admit that he was
repeatedly making a *simple* misconception about unitatarity and basic
linear algebra, all because to do so would destroy his argument that FTL
transmission of information would be possible under standard QM.  Now he
suggests (based on his own agenda) that unitarity need not be respected and
is flooding sci.physics with hard to follow treates on his "new" QM.  Is
there any experimental *suggestion* that such an extension to QM is
necessary? No.  Just lots of speculations about Bell's inequality and EPR
experiments...no data, mind you...just "what if"s.  Call me "orthodox" or
even stogie, but I see no need to create new complicated theories for
non-problems.  Now, if an experiment did show a problem, I'll be open for
suggestions, and we and call him at that time.  But Sarfatti has a
"solution" out searching for an anomaly.  Unitarity seems to have held
just fine up to now, with NO hints of any problems.

> [..]
>>In a private e-mail communication with a physicist e-mail friend who knows his
>>quantum mechanics and does not totally agree with Sarfatti, he stated that
>>some of these other physicists are just jealous, closed-minded, and react the
>>way they do because they are afraid that [..]
> Of course that friend of yours is as objective as you are, and he's just
> stating facts.  It's a good thing the orthodox scientists are closed-minded,
> isn't it?  And it's a good thing you know they are.  You would be hard pressed
> with all that opposition if you hadn't such a fine excuse for it.

I too disagree with Sarfatti, and you'd probably lump me in with those
"other physicists" Jon, but I think you're defending the wrong group.
We're just holding on to the status-quo because no one's shown us cause to
change it.  Great leaps in physics haven't occured because someone came up
with a radical new theory out of the blue; rather the changes occured
because some experimentally observed pheonomena *required* it.  Sarfatti
is just a theorist cranking out unnecessary theories -- all based on a
preconcieved notion of how the world should be (FTL communication,
precognition)...hardly what one would call open-minded and scientific.
Before you chastize the scientific community for it's response to
"crackpots", maybe you ought to investigate whether those you're
defending don't exhibit the same faults.  Maybe it's a case of equal and
opposite reactions :-)

As for my reaction to Sarfatti:
Jealous: hardly...I have no great desire to appear to the world as a crank.
close-minded: depends on the subject and how you define it...(see, I'm
honest too).  I try not to let my brains leak out, at least not on an
international medium.  Quiet speculation bounced of a trusted ,respected,
knowledgable co-worker/friend is fine.  My "barrier potential" goes up when
I sense an agenda becoming more important than the theory as it appears to
be in this particular case.

Besides, if this "friend" does not agree with the great Sarfatti, isn't he
just being "jealous and closed-minded"?  How do you distinguish him from
any of the others that disagree with Sarfatti?  Honestly, how do you know
I'm acting this way because I'm afraid S might be right?  Maybe, I've
followed lots of what was posted and found the poster to lack the
capability of clear, concise, logical thinking/writing and the underlying
ideas without any hint of direction except a preconcieved need to create
some theory that *radically* differs from accepted theory.  To me it
appears driven by meglomania, rather than experimental data.

Now, Sarfatti will tell anyone who will listen that what he proposes can be
checked experimentally.  And maybe it can, personally I've lost intereest
as it has lost coherence.  I (and I suspect many others lurking on sci.
physics) wish that Sarfatti would just put together one final draft of his
theory (rather than repeatedly letting the net pick at the little (and big)
error (which he constantly attributes to typos)) and be done with it....
then go away until the experiment is done.  And I suggest the net (and sci.
physics in particular) is NOT the place to solicit for an experimentalist
to conduct it; he can damn well write up a proposal like the rest of the
scientists in the world.

>>Of course, this applies in the medical field as well, and I wouldn't even
>>be surprised if it's even more so (based on my personal experience with
>>medical doctors who also perform research).
> *Of course.*  Perhaps I should also use this excuse to ignore my critics.
> It's so convenient...

Oh, yes the ol' "everyone is closed-minded and jealous, but me and those I 
agree with" argument.  Sorry Jon, but that doesn't cut it.

 Robert W. Hatcher        | 256D Physics-Astronomy    | hatcher@msupa   (Bitnet)
 Software Tzar, Hunchback | Michigan State University | msuhep::hatcher (HEPnet)
 (517) 353-3008,-5180     | East Lansing, MI 48824    | hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu