I bet there could be some juicy ones.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (46)
sorted by:
Yeah.
Einstein is to physics, as what Fauci is to medicine.
If you keep that thought in mind whilst studying the development of the standard model, and the move away from pragmatic science, then it takes on a whole different look.
Einstein played very little part in the development of the Standard Model. Also, I have looked at the evidence of "Einstein as a fraud" and have found it to be ludicrous, at least as presented to me. It suggests that because he used work from previous physicists and put it all together into one coherent theory that that makes him "a fraud."
Yet that is exactly what all physics is. I'm not saying he's right, but I have seen no evidence of anything other than just good physics from Einstein, even if he got it all wrong.
Here's what people seem to completely misunderstand. Physics has nothing to do with Truth, but it doesn't pretend to. Physics is a set of useful mathematical models. It is absolutely nothing more; and every good physicist knows it. That doesn't mean there is no fuckery there, there is a ton. That doesn't mean there is no dogma there, there is a ton. But that has more to do with how it's sold to the public than how it is seen by physicists.
Don't get me wrong, its easy to drink your own kool-aid and more than a few physicists do, but in general, most physicists understand what physics is; a set of mathematical models. Einsteins mathematical models were extremely useful, and the axioms (which are his true genius and original work, even if wrong) are also useful, even if they may have ultimately led us astray. That leading astray is more the work of other entities than Einstein.
I am not thinking Einstein was some great person. I have no doubt he was as corrupt as any other in his position, but to downplay his contributions to physics has no evidential support, and all arguments I have seen seem to have no clue what physics is (useful mathematical models), and what it is not (truth).
Great comment, Slyver. Sensible and enjoyable to read.
I actually agree completely.
Anyone who knows much about Einstein, the man, will readily agree he was kind of a dick.
But yes, scientists build on each other's work. That's literally the entire point of science. Someone proposes an idea, it gets torn to shreds, and if it's still standing, it's considered a strong enough idea to use as a foundation for new ones.
And you are correct that physics is an attempt to DESCRIBE reality, not DEFINE reality. Defining reality is sort of the idealistic goal that lends us the motivation to describe it using math.
And as anathema as it is to say around here, this extends to ALL science, not just the "harmless" ones. This includes, say, the appropriate medical response to a virus that we haven't encountered before. This includes, say, mathematical models predicting climate change.
Science is an attempt to describe and predict. When people assume it's an attempt to define reality, they hold it to a standard that every scientist will inevitably fail. That doesn't mean science is failing. It just means the people who are making the judgments are expecting certainty the scientific process never was designed to prove. It's a definitional straw-man argument.
Way too harsh. Einstein was neither a fraud nor a psychopath trying to impose a tyranny designed to crush humanity and kill millions (billions, actually) in the process.
Einstein's 1921 Nobel Prize was for his "discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect" -- which more or less kicked off quantum theory. Relativity theory is primarily his -- and both work extremely well; GPS systems rely on relativity and most of the modern world -- the newish, high-tech parts anyway -- would not even exist without our understanding of quantum mechanics.
That doesn't mean either theory is fully correct or that they both won't be overthrown someday (perhaps soon) the same way Newtonian physics was superseded BY the standard model. But note that for everyday use, including the building of bridges and so on, Newton's equations still work fine. It's only at the extremes (of mass, relative velocity, etc) that relativistic and quantum effects become relevant. Likewise, whatever comes after the standard model will have to make the same predictions in nearly all circumstances as quantum and relativity theories (I'm considering them both as standard model components).
In any case, other theories ARE out there, such as the Electric Universe theory. There are others.
I'm more interested in quantum fundamentals, the interpretation of what the theory and experimental results of quantum physics in particular tells about the actual structure of the universe. There are dozens of such interpretations, the best-known being the idea that unless something is being observed it exists only as a cloud of probabilities -- including your living room and distant galaxies -- and the mulitple universe theory (there are different kinds of multiverse theories, but here I'm talking about the theory that at every point where things could go more than one way, entire new universes spit off to accommodate each and every possible choice).
BOTH of those ideas seem completely insane. Yet, serious and well-known physicists believe that's how things actually are. Here's an interesting one: Here's an interesting one: The Idea of the World: A Multi-Disciplinary Argument for the Mental Nature of Reality .
I don't really think that OP was comparing their psychological states. Fauci may or may not be a psychopath, and Einstein definitely wasn't the monster that Fauci is, but what I think OP means is that. Einstein and Fauci both gave us flawed models, and people believe their models so religiously that if you speak out against said models you're AnTi-ScIeNcE. When information contradicts those models it is shunned, and the person who shared the data is smeared, ostracized, and ruined professionally.
Every detailed, complex model of how the universe works is flawed; that doesn't mean they're useless. Newtons laws were very useful for hundreds of years and STILL ARE.
That's not Einstein's fault -- he was a scientist and changed his views repeatedly based on new evidence or more compelling theory. But PEOPLE in general behave the way you describe; when they have paradigm solidly in mind they REALLY don't want to change it.
The problem with the comparison between Einstein and Fauci is that Fauci knowingly gave malicious advice to millions (billions, really) of people that caused widespread sickness and death.
Einstein did science that has dramatically improved our understanding of the universe and helped to provide tools never before even imagined (of course, how tools are used is another story, but that's true for all tools).
Well yea, I can't find any flaw in that reasoning. Fauci is a piece of human garbage that should be swinging from a noose. Einstein is and always will be a one of the greatest scientific minds of this era, and yea I agree it wasn't his fault. I believe he later tried to change his mind on the Ether, but it was too late his theories already hit the mainstream.
I agree with comparing Einstein to Fauci in the respect that they both gave us a flawed model, which was then repeated, and beat into's people brains, and now everyone who believes that model has a mind virus.
Thank you for all the well thought out responses to my off-hand comment.
Just to clarify my comment ....
Not suggesting that Einstein and Fauci are exactly equivalent .. its more to keep the assertion in mind (however accurate, or ridiculous or inaccurate it may be), when reading through the development of Modern Physics.
Its a guard statement that will help you see where Physics departed one trajectory and landed in another.
That path of the development of Modern Physics in turn leads to the Standard Model, Quantum Theory, String Theory, and all sorts of fun ideas.
If there is one thing they definitively have in common - it is that just like our latest Lord, Master and popular Hero Yelensky of Kyiv, both Einstein and Fauci have been shoved down our throats as brand names, who's unquestioning acceptance will excuse the humble reader from the burden of critical thinking.
Einstein himself may well have been an innocent pawn in this, or not. Who knows ?
He has certainly been used, over and over again, as a role model for everything good that we should aspire to. The bumbling, awkward genius with the bad hair, who loves riding bicycles, and who has magically made the world a better place. A real life Homer Simpson character, and one of God's chosen few to boot.
I'm more concerned about the development of the pragmatic, and "hard science" approach from how we developed through the enlightenment to the mid-20th C ... and how we come out the other side of WW2 with a firehose of bullshit accepted as the modern educational best practice.
Now we have Sociology, Psychotherapy, Common Core Maths, Political Science, Gender Studies, Queer Theory, String Theory, Black Holes and the Standard Model of Physics.
We should probably question this.