[LINK] The Problem with Higgs Boson - Was Balance the enemy of facts

[Tom Koltai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au 
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Roger Clarke
> Sent: Friday, 21 October 2011 1:14 PM
> To: link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [LINK] The Problem with Higgs Boson - Was 
> Balance the enemy of facts
> 
> 
> At 12:57 +1000 21/10/11, Tom Koltai wrote:
> >  ... when the
> >validity of various belief systems several millennia old are 
> about to 
> >be possibly disproved.
> 
> Comfortable as I am with the analysis that precedes that clause, Tom, 
> I just have to register by disapproval of that last bit.
> 
> The fundamental belief system of practitioners of big science is that 
> they deserve lots of money, forever (or until the other big bang, 
> whichever comes first).
> 

You mean, they're like Journalists with Balanced Reporting?

Balanced matrix funding applications ? (I wonder if there's a Roster?)

"Your turn this month old man, I got a particle accelerator last
month...."

> The means whereby they achieve this is too subtle for the general 
> public to grasp, and hence politicians haven't got an earthly of 
> catching up.  My physics petered out in Nov 1967, and my meta-physics 
> is a bit dated too;  but here goes:
> 
> All science is at best approximation.
> 
> (That's when it's not just plain wrong).
> 
> So there's always an error-factor.
> 
> The error-factor in deep physics can be parlayed into the fairyland 
> of an infinitely-receding nano-horizon.  Expressed in Kuhnian, at 
> each stage, the accumulated anomalies can be explained by postulating 
> another deeper-lying fundamental particle.
> 
> Which will require billions of dollars and Euros to search for.
> 

What makes me chuckle is that Journalists haven't caught on yet...  You
do realise that millions of people around the Globe actually believe
that Science is real and are unable to distinguish between Nano, Micro
and if/or then else. 

> If the next round comes while the expression 'god particle' is still 
> in vogue, they'll have to finesse a bit.  (Anyone want to take a bet 
> on the emergence of the term 'meta-god particle'?).
> 
> Otherwise they can just re-cycle the 'god particle' mythology, on the 
> grounds that they got close last time, but just one more little push 
> is needed.
> 
Wow, that's even more cynical than I usually admit to being...
I presume that you're not actively seeking tenure at this time...

> 
> -- 
> Roger Clarke                                 
> http://www.rogerclarke.com/

TomK