It's desperately sad, yet funny how they both 1) admit that theirs is purely a power play. In their case, it's supposedly a good point. THEY must have the powe

It's desperately sad, yet funny how they both 1) admit that theirs is purely a power play. In their case, it's supposedly a good point. THEY must have the power to control, well everything, but in this case the "direction and story of physics". Merely the future, and the past, of physics. They should be able to use this power for their own ends (which are good, by definition, and in any case they never discuss that) 2) Why are we to go along with this ? Because people who did things for power plays are bad. The people who do "control" (... right ...) the direction and story of physics used that power for their own ends. (except those people never really controlled anything about physics, they just played some role in our discovery of a structure that already existed long before their ancestors started laying eggs) Well, I must say I find it somewhat unlikely that the new boss will be better than the old boss. Wait ... what exactly is the argument here ? By their own measure, they are VERY bad. How are they different from Feynman ? Well, first of all, they never accomplished anything in the things they're looking to change. Secondly the social sciences are incredibly famous for having widespread abuses, far more than the exact sciences. They have been caught at wide-scale scientific fraud, they are famous for serious quality problems in their own field, fraudulently representing their own science to government and getting laws from that, personal abuses (including all kinds of sexual abuse you could come up with. Professors abusing students (male prof-female student, female prof-male student, gay male prof-gay male student, gay male prof, non-gay male student, gay female prof-straight male student (yes, really. Think humuliation), gay female prof-female student, ...) In other words, they "are the cure" ... that's FAR worse than the disease. Anyone remember https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism ? That was essentially the same, except for being much more successful in actual change than the social sciences ever were. Let's keep it that way ...