h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Without knowing a thing about it, it sounds from what you are saying like a triumph of postmodernism: truth constructed within discourse.

I think that the parallels between postmodernism and ST are too uncomfortable to ignore. Two of the criticisms most commonly levelled at the theory are 'it's not even wrong' and 'it's a theory of anything, rather than a theory of everything'. The first criticism is based on the observation that it makes few if any testable predictions. The second arises from the comment that the theory it has evolved into, M-theory, says that it could account for up to 10^500 possible universes. That's right: a googolgoogolgoogolgoogolgoogol universes each with their own set of physical laws.

This is why I'm beginning to think it's a load of crap and possibly the longest intellectual blind alley anywhere.

I can see why you compare it to religion. The idea of parallel universes splitting off at every juncture that could go one of two (or more) ways (as exploited in the Back to the Future series) makes it just too unlikely that this version of me will ever reach the end of this sentence -- but look! We survived again! We sure are in the right universe! So far!

I have no doubt that the people who work in this field are extremely clever people who are mathematical wizards. Apparently new branches of mathematics have had to be developed simply to work in the field. However, this doesn't meant that it reflects reality in any meaningful way.

The measure of worth of any scientific theory is in its predictive power: if the nature of the explanation it proffers is such that under a specific set of future circumstances, it is true then the chances are that the theory is correct. Such as when Einstein predicted that gravity would bend light waves, and subsequent studies of a solar eclipse showed this to be true.

The trouble is that ST has had great difficulty reproducing what's already there, and in thirty years has come up with virtually bugger-all that *is* predictable. However, this hasn't stopped my ex-friend from often quoting Lord Kelvin's arrogant generalisation that 'there are two kinds of scientists; physicists and stamp collectors'. I should have retorted that the two kinds are those who like to think themselves scientists (but have nothing to show for it) and those who have actually proven they can do it. (He's a Mensa member, by the way, which probably explains an awful lot).

I see his kind of attitude as the epitome of this kind of arrogance; in his view there are two kinds of physicists: string theorists and drudges. Never mind the fact that predictions from competing theories are now beginning to emerge, such as the types and charges of elementary particles, and in a much less convoluted fashion.

In our conversations I (rather provocatively) likened the Large Hadron Collider project to the modern equivalent of the Tower of Babel: building something huge and expensive in the hope we can understand God's design for the Universe. I expect that this time the only edifice to be struck down will be the huge, creaky house of cards that theoretical physics has become. I'm looking forward with much glee to the day when they establish that there is *no* Higgs boson and *no* supersymmetry, and the entire establishment finds out that the past thirty-odd years is a total and utter waste of time. In fact, I might even have a drink, produced in a process that we understand perfectly by microbes acting on good old chemicals.

Felonious wrote: (He's a Mensa member, by

*snrk* hwmfa ... Bwa HA ha HAR ha!!!

Mensa: the society for people who think they're clever but don't know how to prove it.

I think I told you the story of when, about fifteen years ago, he invited me to a Mensa dinner. I happen to be an excellent dinner-time companion (even though I say so myself) because I'm stimulating and interesting company. Well, the evening wore on and I was expecting the invetiable question from my companions, which eventually came: 'You seem like a very bright and well-read chap. Ever thought of joining?'
'Naaaah. Too stupid. Only got an IQ of 145.'

I think the temperature must have dropped by about 40 degrees in three seconds.

What a moment to treasure.

I think the last straw in the conversation I had with this person was when he started going on about how mathematics was all one needed to care about in the world of ideas. I pointed out that the best idea that anyone ever had, anywhere, was had by Darwin.

To which I got the reply
'Sorry, but I would scarcely call Darwin's theory of evolution the "single best idea that anyone had, anywhere"... I apologize for repeating Eddington's old adage - 'There are only two kinds of science - physics and stamp-collecting' - but Darwin's theory of natural selection is really only stamp-collecting, albeit if on a very grand scale - an extremely detailed and broad-ranging taxonomical cataloguing of biological diversity, combined with some - to be honest - quite obvious and common-sensical deductions about the origins of that diversity.'

You can here the condescension dripping from that paragraph, can't you? Patronising presumptious shit. Well, here's an equation for the string theorists:
http://www.edge.org/images/Dawkins_large.jpg

Nice one.

The best discoveries and inventions have their begrudgers. Dr Johnson put down Swift's 'Gulliver's Travels' saying "Once you have thought of big men and little men it is very easy to do all the rest" http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/BLJ/b590.html par 24

Nobody ever erected a statue to a critic.

Except George Bernard Shaw (dramatist, political activist and longstanding music critic).

True, but he wasn't *just* a critic, was he? I saw 'Mrs. Warren's Profession' on the stage a few months ago. He was a very daring playwright.

Yes. His daring and relevance become obscured as his goals are gradually being met. He was responsible for turning Labour from violent revolution to peaceful evolution (the Fabians). Wonder what he'd make of New Labour?

Which sort-of, rather elliptically, brings me to my final dilemma in this whole sad story. Should I settle for the peaceful evolution of my defunct friendship and just let it peter out? Or should I put the seal on the violent revolution and let off a Parthian shot telling this guy exactly what I think of him and his pretentiousness and presumption?

Which would achieve . . . ? I doubt you'd feel so great about it yourself after a while

True. I'd come to the same conclusion myself after a while. I think I'll let him fill in the blanks. He's supposed to be a Mensa member after all.

Ooooo

Smart doesn't mean socially competent.

Being in Mensa doesn't mean 'smart', either. 'Smart' people are people who know how to apply their intelligence. Mensa is creaking at the seams with low achievers.

I think someone once described Mensa as the club for 'people who think they're clever but don't know how to prove it'. As a generic description it serves pretty well. As a specific description of this guy it's spot on. He has a mediocre degree from a physics department that has since been put out of his misery, has no higher degree and has published nothing. Yet he seems to think he has a right to pontificate.

I do hope he's reading this journal.