tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post2929677745080649446..comments2024-03-28T17:44:11.289+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: Adaptive evolution, increased worldliness and the decline of ChristianityBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-58040772286438002832012-07-14T15:54:31.378+01:002012-07-14T15:54:31.378+01:00Maybe they're constructing the particle rather...Maybe they're constructing the particle rather than discovering it.Odin's Ravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10138497698247404499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-78815086682374065182012-07-05T19:08:55.843+01:002012-07-05T19:08:55.843+01:00Yes - when I say I don't believe Big Physicist...Yes - when I say I don't believe Big Physicists, it is not that I also claim to know better than them (like I do with economists), but simply that I don't believe them.Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-69540206063586790292012-07-05T18:48:52.656+01:002012-07-05T18:48:52.656+01:00I'd better admit that I am not remotely equipp...I'd better admit that I am not remotely equipped to make expert judgements on Big Physics: I always ask my chum the particle physicist. Save in one regard: I do know that all public statements by physicists translate as "Give me da money!"deariemenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-23281713883688487702012-07-05T16:47:50.032+01:002012-07-05T16:47:50.032+01:00"I don't believe Big Physics": it..."I don't believe Big Physics": it's easy to sympathise. A discipline that can't account for 95% of the mass in the universe could always say "Oh dear, our theories must be wrong". Instead it prattles about 'dark matter'.deariemenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-91817669669031331812012-07-05T15:40:45.255+01:002012-07-05T15:40:45.255+01:00@D - to be quite candid I don't believe Big Ph...@D - to be quite candid I don't believe Big Physics.<br /><br />Ever since reading a biography of Carlo Rubbia some 25 years ago I have realized that neither the project leaders nor the thousands upon thousands of people that they employ, are even trying to discover that elusive thing 'the truth'.<br /><br />Truth-full-ness is not the bottom line for them. <br /><br />And if you aren't really trying to discover (nor to speak) the truth, then you certainly won't discover it (nor will you speak it) - and the more money you waste, the less likely.Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-37285815529214755862012-07-05T15:22:20.594+01:002012-07-05T15:22:20.594+01:00Ooh, even I think you're being a little harsh....Ooh, even I think you're being a little harsh. You don't know it's there until you do a suitable experiment. What the papers haven't grasped is that it is, in one way, a disappointing result. Stuff is as expected - theoretical physics is just where it was thirty or more years ago, save for that one compelling item of support. (Well, reasonably compelling.) It would have been much more headlineworthy if they could have said they'd found proof that it didn't exist. <br /><br />I suppose it's a bit like Eddington's expedition to test General Relativity; though, on reflection, there have been people who say that Eddington's measurements weren't accurate enough to back up Einstein anyway.deariemenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-29141463992858592672012-07-05T14:44:43.783+01:002012-07-05T14:44:43.783+01:00@dearieme - but why?
I am interested in science,...@dearieme - but why? <br /><br />I am interested in science, not bureaucracy. <br /><br />(Spending billions of dollars to 'discover' exactly what you already knew was there doesn't count as science in my book - just 'project management'/ job creation. No wonder they have to resort to the hype of 'GP' to make it seem interesting.)Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-72201517942974882932012-07-05T12:05:36.804+01:002012-07-05T12:05:36.804+01:00I had rather hoped that today you'd have somet...I had rather hoped that today you'd have something to say about the absurd usage "God Particle". Another time, perhaps?deariemenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-71594003577588872332012-07-05T09:30:39.669+01:002012-07-05T09:30:39.669+01:00If this theory be true, then the 'worldly peop...If this theory be true, then the 'worldly people' are not really worldly. They just have different genes pushing them towards a more worldly way. <br /><br />I have not read Gregory Clark but I suspect, if he is not a Christian, then his definitions could be problematic, as it generally is in sociological and socio-biological investigations. <br /><br />For instance, it is said that the people with long-term horizons pursue enlightened self-interest. But by Pascal's wager, it is my self-interest to believe in God and be not too-worldly. So it is a question of my belief and not about short or long time-horizons. <br /><br />And purely secularly, people with long-term horizons could be Randian optimists, stoical pessimists, Buddhists interested in getting a good re-birth.Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.com