Science is losing for two reasons - 1) If you use science to bludgeon the other side into submission, don't be surprised if they do the same, or worse, get rid of your weapon of choice. 2) A lot of science is, get this, crap. Sabine Hossenfelder has argued that physics hasn't made a substantial advancement in 50 years. 50% of published psychology studies fail replication. Many other sciences are facing the same problem. As a scientist I see this as a red flag. There are some sciences, I'm sorry to say, where advancement is simply not possible. There is little, if anything, new to discover, and the number of researchers in those fields needs to shrink, by a lot. Direct the funding to where it can be of use.
I am intrigued by the Abundance Agenda for the Democrats.
My degree is in Physics - 50 years ago. Hossenfelder has a point. But when we get fusion power, that'll be Physicists how made one small step after another.
The real opportunity for significant advancement now is bio-medical. I think few understand how significant the recent advances are. It's akin to 1870 saying "we have electricity, what can we do with it?"
"But when we get fusion power, that'll be Physicists how made one small step after another."
If we ever get fusion, not when. I've given up hope myself - too many false claims. And I don't credit physics, but materials science, if we ever do get it.
And sure - biomedical. Geology. Space. astronomy (just look at what the ebb is doing), materials science. Computer engineering. All good stuff. All capable of significant advancement.
I recall buying by crystallography textbook 30 years ago and realizing the first edition of the book was published in the 1940s. That field is dead. We should still teach it, but the idea that there will be some sort of scientific advancement...not gonna happen.
There is a lot of momentum in science. Scientists that need to pay the mortgage. When your discoveries shrivel up, you turn to politics, or to advocates. Or rehashing old stuff. or reducing the level of proof to have at least something interesting to publish.
Sabine points out that theoretical physics is a huge morass of garbage, where most of what they propose is proven wrong, then repackaged, and proposed again. And again. It seems incapable of advancing on any front whatsoever. It is mathematical twaddling.
I agree completely.
Science is losing for two reasons - 1) If you use science to bludgeon the other side into submission, don't be surprised if they do the same, or worse, get rid of your weapon of choice. 2) A lot of science is, get this, crap. Sabine Hossenfelder has argued that physics hasn't made a substantial advancement in 50 years. 50% of published psychology studies fail replication. Many other sciences are facing the same problem. As a scientist I see this as a red flag. There are some sciences, I'm sorry to say, where advancement is simply not possible. There is little, if anything, new to discover, and the number of researchers in those fields needs to shrink, by a lot. Direct the funding to where it can be of use.
I am intrigued by the Abundance Agenda for the Democrats.
My degree is in Physics - 50 years ago. Hossenfelder has a point. But when we get fusion power, that'll be Physicists how made one small step after another.
The real opportunity for significant advancement now is bio-medical. I think few understand how significant the recent advances are. It's akin to 1870 saying "we have electricity, what can we do with it?"
"But when we get fusion power, that'll be Physicists how made one small step after another."
If we ever get fusion, not when. I've given up hope myself - too many false claims. And I don't credit physics, but materials science, if we ever do get it.
And sure - biomedical. Geology. Space. astronomy (just look at what the ebb is doing), materials science. Computer engineering. All good stuff. All capable of significant advancement.
I recall buying by crystallography textbook 30 years ago and realizing the first edition of the book was published in the 1940s. That field is dead. We should still teach it, but the idea that there will be some sort of scientific advancement...not gonna happen.
There is a lot of momentum in science. Scientists that need to pay the mortgage. When your discoveries shrivel up, you turn to politics, or to advocates. Or rehashing old stuff. or reducing the level of proof to have at least something interesting to publish.
Sabine points out that theoretical physics is a huge morass of garbage, where most of what they propose is proven wrong, then repackaged, and proposed again. And again. It seems incapable of advancing on any front whatsoever. It is mathematical twaddling.