5 ms·

I gave the article a once-over but don't have any comments on it. This is a comment on another part of that page, the author description. I am not using an ad h

I gave the article a once-over but don't have any comments on it. This is a comment on another part of that page, the author description. I am not using an ad hominem attack on his ideas; rather, I am addressing the disturbing self-identification. Describing yourself as a "conservative physicist" is rather dodgy. (From the article it seems that conservative is used in the typical American political sense, though the author says he's Czech.) It gives the impression that your primary identity bound up in a false political dichotomy used as an adjective (conservative) followed by a non-sequitur, the job name (physicist). "Conservative politician" makes sense, it's identifying your primary affiliation in your primary job of politics. "Conservative physicist" puzzles me. Does this mean that your scientific search for physics truths is bound up in conservative ideology? Does it mean your conservative ideology is a result of your search for physics truths? They are at different levels of reality; I'm having trouble seeing how they are related.

gizmo 17y ago
He's just using the dictionary definition of "conservative". A physicist who assumes new developments have little to no merit unless shown otherwise. Contrast with a "progressive" physicist who comes up with a new radical physics theory every month. By analogy: a conservative programmer is somebody who would generally look at tools like C++ and Java and .NET to solve his problems, because the tools are proven and have well known pros and cons. A progressive programmer would be more tempted to consider the language du jour.
- gjm11 17y ago
  No, really, he isn't. He means it in the political sense. (He's a string theorist, and whatever string theory is it really isn't "conservative" in the sense you describe; not until it starts getting experimental evidence.) See, e.g., http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/massachusetts-brown-vs-coakley.html http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/massachusetts-brown-vs-coa... . (Or, if you share my opinion that what is called with "skepticism" or "denialism" about anthropogenic global warming, depending on which side the caller is on, is generally politically motivated, see about half the posts on his blog.)
dkarl 17y ago
They're related because they both describe him. Perhaps he feels they are the two most helpful pieces of information for understanding him and his writing.

gizmo 17y ago

He's just using the dictionary definition of "conservative". A physicist who assumes new developments have little to no merit unless shown otherwise. Contrast with a "progressive" physicist who comes up with a new radical physics theory every month. By analogy: a conservative programmer is somebody who would generally look at tools like C++ and Java and .NET to solve his problems, because the tools are proven and have well known pros and cons. A progressive programmer would be more tempted to consider the language du jour.

gjm11 17y ago
No, really, he isn't. He means it in the political sense. (He's a string theorist, and whatever string theory is it really isn't "conservative" in the sense you describe; not until it starts getting experimental evidence.) See, e.g., http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/massachusetts-brown-vs-coakley.html http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/massachusetts-brown-vs-coa... . (Or, if you share my opinion that what is called with "skepticism" or "denialism" about anthropogenic global warming, depending on which side the caller is on, is generally politically motivated, see about half the posts on his blog.)

dkarl 17y ago

They're related because they both describe him. Perhaps he feels they are the two most helpful pieces of information for understanding him and his writing.