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

I tend to agree with Malf's guess that most scientists just do the work and don't bring whatever metaphysical view, if any, they may have into it.

The rub here are those rather loud voices representing "science" (perhaps to the chagrin of some/many? scientists).

Krauss, Dawkins, etc.  Even Tyson and Nye to a large degree.

In their understandable fight against fundamentalists they elect to paint themselves into a corner and present science as a religion.  They invoke materialism if not by name certainly by their broader words.  It leaves no middle ground which is where, I suspect, many scientists actually would reside metaphysically: "Who knows for sure, but I tend to believe X" type of thing.

Heh, remember Tysons reasoning to Stephen Colbert for why oumuamua couldn't possibly be an alien craft?

"Because we have laws of gravity!"

That has been my experience as well. Most of the scientists I know are dismissive of metaphysics. 

Unless I'm misunderstanding malf, I don't believe what he said means that they're dismissive of metaphysics. It's just that they don't care much about it or think about it when they're actually designing and conducting their research. There's a pretty big difference between those two things.

Unless I'm misunderstanding malf, I don't believe what he said means that they're dismissive of metaphysics. It's just that they don't care much about it or think about it when they're actually designing and conducting their research. There's a pretty big difference between those two things.

I agree that those two are not the same. I was offering up my own experience that, not only do they not think about it (one thing), but they are dismissive (disparaging even) when it is brought up (another thing). I don't know how representative my experience is.

Linda

Unless I'm misunderstanding malf, I don't believe what he said means that they're dismissive of metaphysics. It's just that they don't care much about it or think about it when they're actually designing and conducting their research. There's a pretty big difference between those two things.

Whether they are dismissive or just don't care, it is a sad state of affairs IMO. I don't want to repeat my previous posts so I'll just say that the stagnation lamented in the OP is probably a direct result of this shallowness.

Heh, remember Tysons reasoning to Stephen Colbert for why oumuamua couldn't possibly be an alien craft?

"Because we have laws of gravity!"

Don't know what Tyson said, so here's an in-depth video explaining why Oumuamua is unlikely to be an alien craft. PBS Spacetime
https://youtu.be/wICOlaQOpM0

I found the Colbert Tyson vid. You've misstated Tyson's remark. He never said or implied it could not possibly be an alien craft- just unlikely. Even the authors of a white paper that suggested an alien craft really weren't taking the thought seriously.

I agree that those two are not the same. I was offering up my own experience that, not only do they not think about it (one thing), but they are dismissive (disparaging even) when it is brought up (another thing). I don't know how representative my experience is.

Linda

My experience says you've accurately characterize things.

Good.  Then they should stop opining on the topic (metaphysics) since their profession has, literally, nothing to say about it and their personal perspective is neutral or even negatively biased.

Don't know what Tyson said, so here's an in-depth video explaining why Oumuamua is unlikely to be an alien craft. PBS Spacetime
https://youtu.be/wICOlaQOpM0

I found the Colbert Tyson vid. You've misstated Tyson's remark. He never said or implied it could not possibly be an alien craft- just unlikely. Even the authors of a white paper that suggested an alien craft really weren't taking the thought seriously.

Yeah he said unlikely but I doubt that was much more than lip service. Just the thing you're supposed to say if you subscribe to the ideology to keep up appearances, much like the term 'amen'. His body language and tone during the interview and especially during the way the quote just sort of burst out of him tells me that he thought the entire idea was ridiculous and he was annoyed at Colbert for even suggesting it. Him doing the "proper rationalist" thing of saying it's only unlikely doesn't wipe that away.

Yeah he said unlikely but I doubt that was much more than lip service. Just the thing you're supposed to say if you subscribe to the ideology to keep up appearances, much like the term 'amen'. His body language and tone during the interview and especially during the way the quote just sort of burst out of him tells me that he thought the entire idea was ridiculous and he was annoyed at Colbert for even suggesting it. Him doing the "proper rationalist" thing of saying it's only unlikely doesn't wipe that away.

Could be lip service. On the other hand likely he simply meant it was unlikely. If you scratch below the surface there are good reasons why Neil and others say unlikely. You'll hear a bunch of good reasons why it's unlikely in that video. Considering all the things it could be against no indication of advanced technological extraterrestrials civilization, which is more likely a. it being a big rock or b. it being a alien craft?

Could be lip service. On the other hand likely he simply meant it was unlikely. If you scratch below the surface there are good reasons why Neil and others say unlikely. You'll hear a bunch of good reasons why it's unlikely in that video. Considering all the things it could be against no indication of advanced technological extraterrestrials civilization, which is more likely a. it being a big rock or b. it being a alien craft?

No I wasn't saying I thought it was alien. The point was how he talked about it and how he conveyed himself. Besides, there's many other much better cases to point to about alien craft such as Japan Airlines flight 1628 from 1986 as one of the most cited examples where craft were reported by both the pilots as well as sighted on radar.