The Present Phase of Stagnation in the Foundations of Physics Is Not Normal

The Present Phase of Stagnation in the Foundations of Physics Is Not Normal

by Sabine Hossenfelder

Developing new methodologies is harder than inventing new particles in the dozens, which is why they don’t like to hear my conclusions. Any change will reduce the paper output, and they don’t want this. It’s not institutional pressure that creates this resistance, it’s that scientists themselves don’t want to move their butts.

How long can they go on with this, you ask? How long can they keep on spinning theory-tales? 

I am afraid there is nothing that can stop them. They review each other’s papers. They review each other’s grant proposals. And they constantly tell each other that what they are doing is good science. Why should they stop? For them, all is going well. They hold conferences, they publish papers, they discuss their great new ideas. From the inside, it looks like business as usual, just that nothing comes out of it.

This is not a problem that will go away by itself.

If there is nothing that can stop them, then we might as well close up shop.

A provocative article, if a bit whiny.

~~ Paul

From Sci's perspective. My suspicion is this is a thinly disguised let's throw science away because science doesn't know everything.

From Sci's perspective. My suspicion is this is a thinly disguised let's throw science away because science doesn't know everything.

Perhaps you should examine the author's positions / credentials before posting ad hominems?

In fact the article itself holds the answer regarding what to do about the problem, I even quoted that portion. It does not involved throwing science away.

Perhaps you should examine the author's positions / credentials before posting ad hominems?

In fact the article itself holds the answer regarding what to do about the problem, I even quoted that portion. It does not involved throwing science away.

I did.  Knowing psi sympathetic persons typically have gripes about materialistic science, it's your intention I question.

I did.  Knowing psi sympathetic persons typically have gripes about materialistic science, it's your intention I question.

I don't see how my "questionable intentions" affect the accuracy of her post. 


I mean its obvious all your posts are an attempt to promote a world where anything your atheist/materialist faith is challenged [by] doesn't exist, but it seems to be a waste of pixels to make this comment over and over...save [for] when it leads to amusing moments like your denial of field effects b/c you thought they were some kind Psi phenomenon.

I don't see how my "questionable intentions" affect the accuracy of her post. 


I mean its obvious all your posts are an attempt to promote a world where anything your atheist/materialist faith is challenged [by] doesn't exist, but it seems to be a waste of pixels to make this comment over and over...save [for] when it leads to amusing moments like your denial of field effects b/c you thought they were some kind Psi phenomenon.

Her intention is to wakeup her colleagues to the deficiencies of their profession. So you admit your reason is to throw out science.

The only thing I promote is keeping things down to earth. People can damn well believe anything they want the problem is they think they're on the right track. Like me, Paul, fls... have been implying for years; it's not that you are wrong, it's why you all appear very confident you're right? The answer I feel has little to do with what is termed evidence, but rather stems from a deep ideological disdain for all things not immaterial.

Her intention is to wakeup her colleagues to the deficiencies of their profession. So you admit your reason is to throw out science.

The only thing I promote is keeping things down to earth. People can damn well believe anything they want the problem is they think they're on the right track. Like me, Paul, fls... have been implying for years; it's not that you are wrong, it's why you all appear very confident you're right? The answer I feel has little to do with what is termed evidence, but rather stems from a deep ideological disdain for all things not immaterial.

"Throw out science"

After all this time....you really don't get what anyone who disagrees with you is saying.

Amazing.

Her intention is to wakeup her colleagues to the deficiencies of their profession. So you admit your reason is to throw out science.

The only thing I promote is keeping things down to earth. People can damn well believe anything they want the problem is they think they're on the right track. Like me, Paul, fls... have been implying for years; it's not that you are wrong, it's why you all appear very confident you're right? The answer I feel has little to do with what is termed evidence, but rather stems from a deep ideological disdain for all things not immaterial.

I can't speak for others, but my feeling is that science is reaching a dead end because it is incomplete. Imagine for a example, a science that did not include electromagnetism (roughly the science of Newton). It would be incomplete - you couldn't derive electromagnetic effects from Newtonian science. This seems to me to be exactly analogous to the modern situation in which you simply cannot derive consciousness from existing science.

It would have been to no avail to argue vaguely that the attraction/repulsion of electrostatically charged objects was an emergent phenomenon of Newtonian science - somehow reducible to Newtonian physics - without ever explaining how. 

Some of the discoverers of Quantum Mechanics put consciousness into its description. Because the various interpretations of QM don't change the formulae that describe its practical consequences, it is possible for the favoured interpretation to shift over time unconstrained by experimental  results. Thus it is possible to think about QM without mention of consciousness, but one thing we absolutely do know - consciousness has to fit into science somewhere!

For a while talk of consciousness was even pushed out of psychology under the behaviourist movement! Imagine being a psychologist of that era having to describe someone eating a meal by explaining that a human responded to a smell stimulus by exhibiting an eating response! 

There is clearly something about consciousness that seriously unnerves many scientists 

If there is nothing that can stop them, then we might as well close up shop.

A provocative article, if a bit whiny.

~~ Paul

Paul,

Have you missed out a link to the 'provocative article', or are you referring to the original link to SH's blog?