Anderson 1999`brain drain in physics:
summary:
. Anderson 1999 says there was a brain drain
in the field of published physics;
what his article misses is that
real physics exploring new paradigms
is being practiced within secret industries
that serve our national security.
. you'll fully see the real physics
only during the next world-wide war;
for a possible taste of what is to come
study videos of how the towers on 9/11
were silently yet instantly turned to dust.
(not a collapse and not a demolition,
nothing published can explain all the evidence
compiled by Dr.Judy Wood).
Physics Today 1999:
Why Do They Leave Physics?
Philip W. Anderson 1999
University in Princeton
. all the best physics brains are being taken by
high salaries of most notably wall street
but also other fields;
here is another key to the problem:
[the science is assumed to be settled;
so no need to explore new paradigms,
and we can just ignore contradictory data:]
" my reasons for wanting to leave academia,
[include] the desire for a work environment
which rewards those who take appropriate risks. ....
. the problems I have been attracted to ...
are motivate by real world data
where there is no ... existing theoretical model.
. involvement in such projects ...requires
a desire for new challenges, and appetite for risk,
and the ability to be innovative yet humble
in the face ... data."
we no longer have new challenges in academics;
it would be easy to blame the nsf (nat sci foundation)
and the other funding agencies
or the contraction of fundamental science in industry
for this situation: both contribute.
nsf has become steadily more bureaucratic,
requiring more rigidly formatted proposals
and more unanimity among referees... .
[this is the consensus in "consensus science"]
. the members of our profession
-- and particularly those who have responsibility for
hiring and for funding research --
are infected with "Horganism",
the belief that the end of science
(or at least our our science) is at hand;
and that all that is left to do is to
grub away at Kuhnian "normal science"
following the accepted paradigms.
[Normal science,
identified and elaborated on by
Thomas Samuel Kuhn in
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,
entails working within a settled
paradigm or explanatory framework.]
[John Horgan 2015:
In a new edition of my 1996 book
The End of Science,
I argue that "my prediction that there would be
no great 'revelations or revolutions'
—no insights into nature as cataclysmic as
heliocentrism, evolution, quantum mechanics,
relativity, the big bang
--has held up just fine."]
. they believe that there are no more
scientific revolutions possible,
and that we are now in pursuit of
nothing but the next decimal place
[getting more accuracy in measurement]
-- hence, by the way,
the funding prejudice in favor of heavy computer use,
and the existence of the oxymoron
"computational physics".
. in such a world, as in all "normal-science" periods,
the institutional response that is occurring
would make sense. any proposal to be funded
should have essentially unanimous peer approval;
any new appointment should have unanimous approbation
from all senior figures; any such senior figure
who disagrees with the consensus
is bound to be a crackpot and may be ignored.
. when, in fact,
it turns out that in the real world,
physics, even condensed matter theory,
is full of crises and controversies,
and reputable senior scientists
have deep disagreements,
the administrator throws up his hands in bewilderment
and postpones filling the slot.
. another option is to settle for
the most orthodox-seeming appointee,
who has the most easily comprehensible
(read "simple-minded") program in mind.
. finally, and worst of all,
the administrator feels constrained
to assure himself that the candidate is "fungible";
that is, that they can attract the requisite unanimity
--5 out of 6 "excellents" from the nsf references.
(the flexibility of our funding system is a thing of the past,
now, with other agencies tending to follow nsf's lead
rather than to think for themselves;
this practice may be as bad as following the idiosyncratic
and ofen fallible judgment of the grant officer himself).
. we must not let "the end of science"
become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
...
. the best way to prevent the end of science
is to provide opportunity in abundance
for the most creative and original of young people;
this is not happening but it needs to.
 |
| Dr.Judy Wood`Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11 |
No comments:
Post a Comment