Perhaps, the problem is that the word, physics, in itself has a certain powerful influence in out thinking.

That doesn't explain the predilection for doing it badly.

There is a Catholic Biblical scholar who writes books now saying that Einstein invented relativity in order to avoid "proof" that geocentrism is true. He says Einstein wanted a theory that justified relativism of thought so that he didn't have to "bow the knee to Rome". Personally I think relativity and evolution are mind expanding ideas but this is a philosophy forum and people want to know how physics relates to this other field

Probably, we just have to be able to see that It is being done badly, using our critical awareness.

Any explanations? — Banno

The tradition I'm sympathetic with Russell, Chomsky, Strawson, etc. Say that physics is simple in the following sense: the structures they study are simple, what's one particle compared to a biological organism which is composed of billions of particles are have properties not found in particles in isolation.

But, it's certainly true that the mathematics, the theories, the experiments and all the false leads are fiendishly difficult. So anyone who says it's easy, is either a genius mathematician, or doesn't know physics well. That's my initial impression.

They just don't know where to get the good stuff:

Any explanations? — Banno

Your mistake is thinking that the magical thinking of theology stays in theology. Its not physics they have trouble with, its thinking.
Also, Dunning Kruger effect. They don’t know enough physics to realise how ignorant they are about physics.

The tedious tide of theological threads appear to have been replaced by a population of piss-poor physics posts... Any explanations? — Banno

Explanation #1 - Poor enforcement of the pseudo-science rules.

Explanation #2 - Failure to recognize that apparent similarities between phenomena are metaphorical rather than physical, e.g. quantum uncertainty and free will.

Explanation #3 - People just get really excited about waves. They think they explain everything. Fields too. They just sound all sciencey and stuff.

Explanation #4 - Emerson wrote

To believe our own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, -- that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost,--and our first thought, is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment.

We gotta stop letting people read Emerson.

Explanation #5 - It's logic - The most sciencey stuff is weird, e.g. quantum mechanics and relativity. 2) I have some weird ideas. 3) Therefore my ideas must be sciencey too.

"Here we have sanctity which shames our religions, and reality which discredits our heroes. Here we find nature to be circumstance, which dwarfs all other circumstance, and judges like a god all men that come to her." RWE :razz:

I think we all like to see others struggle, especially brain surgeons and rocket scientists. Sometimes (rarely, I admit) it's like Gibbs on NCIS: All the kids are running around the office panicking and trying to solve a cyber attack on all the computers as the screens are going wacky. Gibbs goes over and pulls the plug. Granted, some infestation might continue in the back ground, but at least the kids stopped freaking out.

If you STEM guys want us dummies to butt out, then 1. quit sharing your consternation with the public, 2. do a better job of dumbing things down, and 3. remember who pays the bills and show a little curiosity outside of your field, like we are doing.

You can't blame us for wanting to pitch in when reality and nature discredit our heroes.

Any explanations? — Banno

While the devotees of higher awareness often disparage the limited vision of science, they seem to be the first to reach for science (through speculative quantum theories) when it can be positioned to 'prove' or embolden their positions. Everyone thinks they are Paul Davies.

While the devotees of higher awareness often disparage the limited vision of science, they seem to be the first to reach for science (through speculative quantum theories) when it can be positioned to 'prove' or embolden their positions. Everyone thinks they are Paul Davies. — Tom Storm

I agree with that. However, science often uses the language of higher awareness when discussing their conundrums. "Spooking action at a distance"? Common! You gotta admit that's an invite. :razz:

:cool:

Any explanations? — Banno

If you begin with the premise that God is infinitely wise and complex and that certain texts are a direct expression of his knowledge and that those texts contain explanations for all the mysteries of the universe, doesn't it logically follow that a man made discipline would be child's play in comparison?

doesn't it logically follow that a man made discipline would be child's play in comparison? — Hanover

How so?

That's true; but the folk doing the bad physics don't seem to be the folk doing the theology...

A sort of love-hate thing. But again, the folk doing the bad physics are not always the folk doing the theology.

:up:
:up:

"Bad physics" also follows from doing and/or subscribing to bad philosophy (i.e. unsound, indefeasible, reasoning with/towards 'reified abstractions' OR (non-inferential, intuitionist/folk) 'woos-of-the-gaps') like most e.g. psychologisms, idealisms, non-naturalisms, essentialisms, esotericas....

[T]he fact that generally the ascetic ideal has meant so much to human beings is an expression of the basic fact of the human will, its horror vacui. It requires a goal—and it will sooner will nothingness than not will. — The Geneaology of Morals, Essay 3

(emphasis is mine)

Thus, every woo-of-the-gap is a tell-tale, or symptom, of the (congenital) refusal to admit to oneself "I don't know" or publicly "We don't know yet."

I have doubts regarding what I'm about to say but according to some sources, physics is well on its way to becoming a branch of mathematics. The relationship isn't a one-sided love affair though , each contributes to the other in signifcant ways I was told.

This seems inevitable as physics relies heavily on math - not just as a tool but also as an idea bank from which it borrows models (mathematical ones) to provide a framework for its theories/hypotheses. With such a strong bond between the two, magic is inevitable.

Coming to bad physics, there isn't too much of that around - the world of science is rather harsh to ideas/theories/hypotheses that lack rigor, especially of the mathematical kind. All one has to do to realize this fact is to release a hypotheses of poor quality into the wilderness of science; it won't last very long out in the open.

Bad physics on the forum, this forum, is not an issue for me. It's fun to see someone get it wrong, assuming real physicists got it right, and by joining in make it even more wrong. :joke:

Explanation #3 - People just get really excited about waves. They think they explain everything. Fields too. They just sound all sciencey and stuff. — T Clark

To say nothing of the nature of the waves, ocean waves vs probability waves - all the same stuff apparently. The more esoteric ones travel through the absence of the aether, as well! Spooky action, truly. :rofl:

And then, there are all those infinities . . . :scream:

And then, there are all those infinities . . . :scream: — jgill

Don't forget the God Particle.

I'm sure there a bunch of terms that physicists pull from somebody else's discipline because they keep getting punked by "reality." It's no wonder others feel free to chime in when they see the struggle using familiar terms.

Coming to bad physics, there isn't too much of that around - the world of science is rather harsh to ideas/theories/hypotheses that lack rigor, especially of the mathematical kind. All one has to do to realize this fact is to release a hypotheses of poor quality into the wilderness of science; it won't last very long out in the open. — TheMadFool

...and so in order to survive they migrate to the Philosophy forums.

Perhaps we make the environment too comfortable.

However, science often uses the language of higher awareness when discussing their conundrums. "Spooking action at a distance"? Common! — James Riley

I blame Newton.

...and so in order to survive they migrate to the Philosophy forums.

Perhaps we make the environment too comfortable. — Banno

Philosophy is the junkyard of science — Woe is me who forget the name of this philosopher

Philosophy is the junkyard of science — Woe is me who forget the name of this philosopher

Philosophy is science? I thought science was the bastard step-child of philosophy. :gasp:

What a bunch of navel gazing.

that one person doesn't represent catholicism

any explanations? You are listening or reading the wrong people

Any explanations? — Banno

That math, physics, theology, etc. can't be discussed sensibly on philosophy forums?

I'm sure there a bunch of terms that physicists pull from somebody else's discipline because they keep getting punked by "reality." It's no wonder others feel free to chime in when they see the struggle using familiar terms. — James Riley

What flavour is that quark? I don't know bite it and see. Ha ha ha!

Banno - I think you have to be careful with sweeping statements.

I agree with Manuel when he said...

.... physics is simple in the following sense: the structures they study are simple.....

But, it's certainly true that the mathematics, the theories, the experiments and all the false leads are fiendishly difficult. — Manuel

There is nothing wrong in trying to simplify the message that science has established through complex analysis. We are all on a journey of discovery and self-learning, so if people mis-interpret what science is saying then you have the opportunity to point out where their thinking has gone wrong.

However there has been a tendency in recent decades for such corrective answers to be unavailable, and for people to be just beaten down without justification - because the speculation being advocated by scientists was being promoted as fact, when it wasn't.

If we are truly scientific we should acknowledge real facts and good logic if there is nothing to counter them - even if caveats are placed around the alternate speculation.

But sadly, as in the old days of religious zealots, the scientific zealots are not prepared to compromise even when the facts are presented to them.

That is not pseudo-science - that is real science vs scientific dogma.