Freedom of Science

I always note here how lawyers and physicists are practitioners of the same profession. But there is a difference: compared to physicists lawyers are high class scientists.

Here’s a good example. Read the post there and then come back here.

I want to quote the judge:

It is as if the question debated were the contents of a closed box and, instead of opening the box, the parties have chosen to marshal facts and argue vociferously about what the box would contain if opened. It is perplexing that . . . what should be simple remains hopelessly convoluted.

And this:

To be clear, the Court does not question the parties’ tactical judgments, which are presumably well conceived. But, it is stuck with the amount of time, energy and expense devoted to resolving by argument a matter that could be simply resolved by observation.

The parties never opened the case to find out what kind of motor was in the fan which supposedly caused the fire. They kept speculating about what was in the box to prove their own doctrine. They tried to resolve “by argument a matter that could be simply resolved by observation.”

At first reading this sounds a lot like physics. Doctors of Philosophy make their careers by negotiating and arguing whose principles, definitions and doctrines should be canonized as truth. No physicists ever bothers to open the case and look what’s inside.

If this were true, I would say that law and physics were equally unscientific. But this is not the case.

Doctors of Philosophy try to resolve “by argument” a matter that cannot be “resolved by observation” and claim to have resolved it by experiment. If lawyers are despicable sophists, physicists are despicable sophists of the highest order. We know this because a physicists is a combination of a lawyer, a politician and a cardinal.

Take the String Theory. Today 80 per cent of practicing physicists spend their times speculating about this closed box without ever opening it. Really? Not really. This is wrong. String Theory is not even a closed box. String Theory remains famously undefined. It says a lot about physics that its most famous theory is not even a closed box.

But the last time I checked physics was an experimental science. Surely law is not an experimental science.

This is why physics is not experimental science. At least lawyers are not claiming that what they are doing is an experimental science. Physicists are bigger liars than lawyers. Physicists claim that physics is experimental while physics is not experimental. This can easily be proved experimentally.

When you look at physics experiments so-called, such as, Cavendish experiment, Coulomb experiment, Millikan oil drop experiment, the discovery of electron…. what do you see? These are all fraudulent experiments conducted by physicists to establish a unit. Physicists use the authority of a gadget as false witness to establish the unit of their Newtonian atomic materialism.

If the String Theory is not even a closed box all of the experiments mentioned above are closed boxes to the physicists. No physicist ever questions these experiments. No physicist duplicates these experiments. Physicists take the authority of physics and assume that these experiments are absolute truths. Not only they don’t open and look what is inside the box (the experiment) but physicists take the authority of physics and accept what physics tell them is inside the box.

In law at least we know that lawyers define the laws. They don’t claim that their laws are absolute laws of nature.

When you compare physics with law you would see that physics is a sham, while law is more of a transparent sham.

By the way, when I looked at the comments in the law blog I saw that the first comment was by Tom T who wrote: “Schrödinger’s cat.”

What is the connection? I put a note there let’s see if he will explain what he means.

ShareThis