Freedom of Science

This is a reply I wrote to Bee and Stefan’s comments on Backreaction:

Dear Bee and Stefan,

Thanks again for being kind and replying to my comments. You make many good points and I will review my posts to make amendments. Special thanks for actually reading my blog and writing about it. This is the first time that someone criticized my blog. I appreciate that. And if more people let me know what they think I believe this would be a nicer blog.

Regarding your comments on cosmology: Note that you are asking me about my definition of the universe and I am asking you about your definition of the universe. This means that there is no standard definition of universe. This is a clear indication of a pre-scientific field. I believe this is what cosmology is: a prescientific field because its fundamental unit is undefined. Besides this, I just wanted to make some general comments:

First, I would like to note that you (Bee) is working in an alternative institution which I believe was formed on the realization that there was something wrong with the current academic institutions where physics is taught. Perimeter Institute’s mission is stated as independent, non-directed research, and flat hierarchy and strong public presence. All of these are lacking in academia. Academia is ruled by Doctors of Philosophy who love top-down hierachy and hide information from the public (“popularization is not simplification”).

Furthermore, PI “welcomes a diversity of approaches” “deliberately encouraging deep, innovative thinkers to boldly push the boundaries of our current understanding of physical law.” This is also clear from the open minded approach you display in your blog. Your colleague Lee Smolin writes about “the Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science.” So he is saying that Doctors of Philosophy who invented this thing called string theory corrupted physics into non-science. Am I misunderstanding this? Please correct me if I am wrong. I value your opinion greatly.

Did physics corrupt physics? No. Doctors of Philosophy did corrupt physics. Then what is wrong with writing in my blog that Doctors of Philosophy corrupted physics into non-science? Do I need to have a book contract to be believable?

Obviously, the trouble is not with physics. Physics is only a legal code. The problem is with the institution. The problem is with the professionals who write the physics code. The institution is scholasticism. The professionals are the Doctors of Philosophy.

I have nothing to sell in Freedom of Science blog. Not even ideas. I am offering all that I am writing for evaluation. (Just like a painter who asks for criticism from his peers.) I am not making any claims that anything I write is right or wrong.

I notice that in physics there is no standard of evidence (I took this phrase from Natalie Jeremijenko, another artist! Is this a coincidence that artists are more scientific than physicists? I don’t think so. Artists are free, physicists are not.) In physics there is no definition of what an experiment is. I am saying that this standard of evidence needs to be established. There is only one way to establish this standard and it is to take legal action against institutions that perpetuate scholastacism under the name of physics. Everyone sees that there is something wrong with physics. How to fix it? My remedy is to regulate the physics industry. By this I understand the transfer of the scientific authority to an independent entity. Why? This will remove the authority of practitioners from physics. This is the most fundamental requirement of science. If each and every physicist is free to define what an experiment is, as is the case today, physics cannot be science. If every cosmologist is free to define what universe is cosmology has not reached a scientific stage yet. Only in prescientific state the practitioners have absolute authority to define fundamental concepts of the discipline. Remove the authority of the practioners and the present alphysics will become scientific physics (this has already happened in technology).

Once the scientific authority is transferred to an independent entity a scientific revolution will occur. Why? Because this entity will make scientific definitions. What is an experiment? What is considered science? What is not considered science. What is universe? Everything that exists? Or only the observable part? Can you tell me what is wrong with this idea? I believe that everyone (especially practicing Doctors!) should actually embrace this idea and join the movement to recover the most human of all human activities, science, from its present corrupted state.

If you were Galileo would you be polite and politically correct toward Doctors of Theology who have been blocking the advancement of science? I am saying that the same Doctors who in Galileo’s time were called Doctors of Theology are now called Doctors of Philosophy. That’s why both kinds of Doctors are fighting for the attention of the same audience: People who do not want to be associated with their parents’ religion and are looking for a modern religion. That’s why every other blog in Cosmic Variance is about religion. Galileo was a good Doctor and published as an amateur. You are doing the same thing. You may be a Doctor but you are publishing a blog as an amateur thinking freely. I apologize if this is a judgment which is not correct.

If it is true that modern physicists are scholastic Doctors of Philosophy this has important implications for humanity. This is a speculation which is open to discussion. This is why I started Freedom of Science. Please show me that No, Doctors of Philosophy of today, the physicists, are not the direct descendants of scholastic Doctors of Theology who prosecuted Galileo. Where is the evidence? Tell me that it is merely a coincidence that Newton’s book’s title included “Natural Philosophy” and Peripatetic Philosophers simply adopted Newton as their new Aristotle. In the 19th century even “natural philosophy” started to reek of scholasticism so these scholastic doctors changed their names to “physicists.” The institution is the same. That’s why I am emphasizing that the true name of the profession is Scholasticism and the practitioners are still called Doctors of Philosophy. Physics is the modern branding of the oldest profession.

Modern practitioners of the scholastic profession are the victims of Newtonism. The problem is the religion called Newtonism. Newtonism is a British occult religion which was imposed on European continent as the true British standard of science in the 18th century. As a German how can you ignore that the British occultist Newton stole Kepler’s law?  Kepler was a great scientist who spent decades to extract this rule from observations of Tycho Brahe. Newton simply stole it in ten minutes. Is this fair? Newtonian Doctors of Philosophy who call themselves physicists nowadays are blindly perpetuating this lie. Why not call Kepler’s law Kepler’s law instead of Newton’s law? This is the British colonialism projected to the intellectual realm. I hope that more people will see this.

Thanks.

ShareThis