Freedom of Science

There is a nice post on Backreaction called Wireless Power.

It is good to read things that I have been saying in this blog to be recognized by professional physicists themselves:

Sabine Hossenfelder (Bee) of Perimeter Institute writes: “I was looking for some insights regarding the “wireless power” that I read about. I actually found a lot of articles. But they are all more or less identical copies, and they all explain nothing - but that with an impressive amount of words.”

I am glad that Bee has noticed that an academic physics paper is polemical philosophy. Every academic physicist masters the wonderful method of saying nothing with impressive amount of words early in his career. Great physics careers have been made by writing monumental books on nothing and all its species. Couple nothing with infinity and there you go you can write your way into scholastic heaven.

Bee asks: “How wireless power for home use could work.”

During her scientific investigation Bee sends an email to an MIT scientists:

“… I sent an email to one of the authors of physics/0611063, Aristeidis Karalis, asking whether it is okay that I display the figures from paper. He replied that the paper is in the publication process and asked me to remove the figures. I was kind of afraid that would happen. So, I am sorry for the inconvenience, but you’ll have to look at the pdf-file.”

What does science have anything to do with copyright?

I have been writing that academic physics is controlled by Big Media. Can there be a better proof of this fact?

A colleague is kindly requesting some images from another physicist for her research. The academic physicist refuses. If he shares he may not get the academic credit and he may even be sued by the Big Media who uses the academic physicist’s research as free content and sells it to universities for outrageous prices.

A great number of people are now cognizant of this fact and there is a big movement to remove the middlemen the Big Media from the news business? Will this ever happen in academic physics?

Physicists are the collaborators, they will not make an attempt to change the system. They will give freely their content to the Big Media for academic points. They will hide as much as possible from their colleagues, and from the public to milk as many academic points as possible. Science has nothing to do with this process.

But this is the punch line: After discussing the issue with an MIT physicist Bee only gets labels as answers: “I am not sure I can make more sense out of ‘jump’ than out of ‘tunnel’” she complains.

Welcome to scholastic physics Bee! “Appealing to the indefinable to explain the inexplicable” has been the bread and butter of philologically-minded Doctors of Philosophy for millennia. Please don’t blame the Doctor of Philosophy who frustrated you with his scholastic labels. He is just doing what he is supposed to do as a scholastic Doctor of Philosophy. That’s his millennia old tradition.

I am glad that you have realized that physicists explain one label with another and call it physics. This is a clear sign of scholasticism. Neither jump or tunnel or any species of them that your correspondent will invent to answer your every question will not help you understand your question. So you are now faced with the wonderful scholastic method of doing physics by authority.

Please keep questioning the authority of physicists, this is where real science lies.

ShareThis