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

1. There's a difference between opinion and factual opinion. You post threads generally consisting of opinion.

2. I'm referring to what some members don't like about science,  It's reductive.

3. Yes, my point of view presents a grounded perspective.  This >   Are you 12 years old?

1. How so? [Also "factual opinion" seems like an oxymoron?]

2. Science isn't by necessity reductive at all.

3. I just find your attempts at pretending to be a serious skeptic humorous. What's grounded about being ignorant of field effects? As for my age, what is the age of someone who runs away to JREF to find someone to attack Manaelli, calling him a "woo monger of the worst kind" b/c he actually had a physics degree but disagreed with you. [Ditto for Raymond Tallis being a neuroscientist who disagreed with you, whom you called a "damn fool" w.out explanation]

"Developing new methodologies is harder than inventing new particles in the dozens, which is why they don’t like to hear my conclusions."

I suppose, but scientists are perfectly happy to invent new methodologies.

I think she overlooks the possibility that physics is hard and long periods may pass without big steps. On the other hand, by all means, try to think outside the can.

~~ Paul

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

I don't know what "throw science away" means, but if it means discard all the benefits of science and technology, if Sci did that, he would obviously instantly vanish from this forum!

We aren't politicians, who all too often simply play with words, so I imagine Sci means what he says!

Also, what Sci did was to quote from a blog by a well known theoretical physicist. It is her who is expressing those doubts (basically about String Theory), and her subject seems to be polarising into two camps - those that dislike String Theory because it is too mathematically vague (there  are vast numbers of String Theories - not just one), and because it has not produced any successful predictions, and those that like to discuss multiple universes, etc.

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

Maybe you are looking at yourself Steve, the only difference being that you have the opposite sympathy.  Actually it's not science we have gripes about, it's the abuse of science and the way many scientists and also ill informed anti-psi evangelists like yourself, jump quickly to the conclusions they prefer and ignore all other possibilities.  Science is dying because of people with your attitude; psi proponents would like to see science grow and expand because it can only be in our favour!

I'm always in favour of science. The more of it the better. Sometimes I seem disinterested in some scientific research or other, but often it's the unwarranted conclusions which turn me off. A little straight talking about what can and cannot be legitimately concluded from particular studies is what I'd like. But more research is what I like, regardless of whether it is tagged as 'materialistic' or not.

When I worked as a programmer, we had this concept of 'egoless programming' That is, to not become attached to a program as if it is one of your own children, instead, be open to having its flaws pointed out, welcome it, be happy that the end result is a better program, Perhaps what we need is 'egoless science'.

There does appear to be a misunderstanding of the process of science from some, and I understand how this can cause frustration. This is exemplified by the “critiques of science” thread at skeptiko. Almost exclusively these “critiques” were examples of science progressing successfully (increasing and refining knowledge in incremental steps) yet presented (spun?) as something else.

There does appear to be a misunderstanding of the process of science from some, and I understand how this can cause frustration. This is exemplified by the “critiques of science” thread at skeptiko. Almost exclusively these “critiques” were examples of science progressing successfully (increasing and refining knowledge in incremental steps) yet presented (spun?) as something else.

Incidents of replication failures & fraud is just "science as usual"?

Heh, I don't think the spin is on my side there...