3 ms·

> I've never heard of influential people in quantum mechanics trying to get a journal shut down because it published something critical of many worlds. You're

by crux_ 17y ago

> I've never heard of influential people in quantum mechanics trying to get a journal shut down because it published something critical of many worlds. You're making a poor choice by using 'many worlds', which is as much/more about philosophy as it is about physics. But if you're looking for blacklisting, banning, etc, here's an example for you, specifically from influential people in quantum mechanics: Arxiv blacklists topics/people all the time. http://www.scientificblogging.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/does_arxiv_blacklist_authors_help_finding_out http://www.scientificblogging.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/d... http://www.archivefreedom.org/ http://www.archivefreedom.org/ http://archivefreedom.org/freedom/Cyberia.html http://archivefreedom.org/freedom/Cyberia.html > We could, I dunno, hack their email to try and see if they try to suppress dissenting opinions? If what's been brought to light consists of anything more than angry muttering I'd like to see it. Personally I'd say the anger is more than justified, although it was stupid to bring it out of the bar and into public record. > Well, actually we can't, since they deleted the data (oops, I mean lost it accidentally, they never acted on the emails in which they said they would delete it)... It's my understanding that the 'lost' data is (a) available from original sources, since it was a compilation of weather station data; (b) still fully available in 'cleaned-up'/scrubbed form (e.g. deleting data that was duplicated from multiple sources), (c) not the data referred to in the hacked emails (it was about other emails, no?). If you're determined to find a conspiracy, you will succeed -- just as intelligent design types have invented a conspiracy of evolutionary biologists and new-age moonbats have invented a conspiracy of physicists. Personally I have a hard enough time believing in conspiracies when the alleged participants are disciplined and collectivist, let alone when they're a bunch of egotistical scientists. (Aside: are you really suggesting a vigilante hacking war is acceptable? If so, I think the conservative lobbyists on K street would be an excellent place to strike back; maybe we'd even find out which of them hired the hacker. (See, I can do conspiracy theory too!))

yummyfajitas 17y ago
I can only comment on Carlos Castro, the link of yours at archivefreedom.org. Near as I can tell, he claims to have come up with a unified field theory. As far as I know, the arxiv filters out proofs of P=NP, the Riemann Hypothesis, unified field theory and similar things. So what? That's not the same as trying to get JMP shut down or editors ousted because it publishes papers on Bohmian mechanics. The fact is, Steve McIntyre is not a crackpot. He has made important contributions to the field, most notably making corrections to Michael Mann's "hockey stick". The CRU folks conspired to keep data from him in order to prevent him from making further corrections to Briffa's hockey stick. With regards to angry muttering, there is far more than that. There is conclusive evidence of a conspiracy: And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? With regards your point c), the people who conspired to hide data now claim that other data was lost. And we believe them because they are so trustworthy? With regards to a hacking war, I wasn't advocating it. I'm simply pointing out that the recent incident does give us evidence that the consensus (which is not a substitute for solid science, BTW) is manufactured.
crux_ 17y ago
(We've hit the reply depth limit...) > I can only comment on Carlos Castro, the link of yours at archivefreedom.org. Near as I can tell, he claims to have come up with a unified field theory. As far as I know, the arxiv filters out proofs of P=NP, the Riemann Hypothesis, unified field theory and similar things. So what? Uh... so, it's scientists banning topics that contradict the widely held scientific consensus. That's what. Why is it just fine in physics but a sign of conspiracy in climate science? > That's not the same as trying to get JMP shut down or editors ousted because it publishes papers on Bohmian mechanics. If they published, without substantial peer review, one of the 'scientists' I linked to, it would be quite justifiable to get them shut down or their editors ousted, wouldn't it? > With regards to angry muttering, there is far more than that. There is conclusive evidence of a conspiracy That is conclusive evidence of one guy being a jackass. But for the purposes of argument, let's assume he was indeed conspiring, rather than ranting. Who with? Who takes his orders and follows them? All of the field of climate science? Riiiiiiiight. Are all of the many independent centers who are reproducing CRU research in on it too? And the many thousands of scientists with the expertise to uncover fraud are all willing participants? All of this, established by this one email? Color me skeptical. > The fact is, Steve McIntyre is not a crackpot. That's your opinion of his plausibility, not a fact. (If you define "crackpot" as someone who repeatedly asserts views widely outside of the scientific consensus, without substantially altering said consensus, then he is, tautologically, a crackpot.) > The CRU folks conspired to keep data from him in order to prevent him from making further corrections to Briffa's hockey stick. I think it's a matter of the public record that he's been highly antagonistic to them. Are they "conspiring" or simply beginning to respond in kind? The latter is far more plausible to me. > With regards your point c), the people who conspired to hide data now claim that other data was lost. With regards to my (c), it's more that you were speculatively (or dishonestly) implying something that isn't true. > With regards to a hacking war, I wasn't advocating it. I'm simply pointing out that the recent incident does give us evidence that the consensus (which is not a substitute for solid science, BTW) is manufactured. That is just one interpretation of the emails. An equally plausible interpretation is that these scientists are under intense political attack, taking it personally and getting angry, and beginning to unwisely respond in kind.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago

by crux_ 17y ago

yummyfajitas 17y ago

I can only comment on Carlos Castro, the link of yours at archivefreedom.org. Near as I can tell, he claims to have come up with a unified field theory. As far as I know, the arxiv filters out proofs of P=NP, the Riemann Hypothesis, unified field theory and similar things. So what? That's not the same as trying to get JMP shut down or editors ousted because it publishes papers on Bohmian mechanics. The fact is, Steve McIntyre is not a crackpot. He has made important contributions to the field, most notably making corrections to Michael Mann's "hockey stick". The CRU folks conspired to keep data from him in order to prevent him from making further corrections to Briffa's hockey stick. With regards to angry muttering, there is far more than that. There is conclusive evidence of a conspiracy: And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? With regards your point c), the people who conspired to hide data now claim that other data was lost. And we believe them because they are so trustworthy? With regards to a hacking war, I wasn't advocating it. I'm simply pointing out that the recent incident does give us evidence that the consensus (which is not a substitute for solid science, BTW) is manufactured.

crux_ 17y ago

(We've hit the reply depth limit...) > I can only comment on Carlos Castro, the link of yours at archivefreedom.org. Near as I can tell, he claims to have come up with a unified field theory. As far as I know, the arxiv filters out proofs of P=NP, the Riemann Hypothesis, unified field theory and similar things. So what? Uh... so, it's scientists banning topics that contradict the widely held scientific consensus. That's what. Why is it just fine in physics but a sign of conspiracy in climate science? > That's not the same as trying to get JMP shut down or editors ousted because it publishes papers on Bohmian mechanics. If they published, without substantial peer review, one of the 'scientists' I linked to, it would be quite justifiable to get them shut down or their editors ousted, wouldn't it? > With regards to angry muttering, there is far more than that. There is conclusive evidence of a conspiracy That is conclusive evidence of one guy being a jackass. But for the purposes of argument, let's assume he was indeed conspiring, rather than ranting. Who with? Who takes his orders and follows them? All of the field of climate science? Riiiiiiiight. Are all of the many independent centers who are reproducing CRU research in on it too? And the many thousands of scientists with the expertise to uncover fraud are all willing participants? All of this, established by this one email? Color me skeptical. > The fact is, Steve McIntyre is not a crackpot. That's your opinion of his plausibility, not a fact. (If you define "crackpot" as someone who repeatedly asserts views widely outside of the scientific consensus, without substantially altering said consensus, then he is, tautologically, a crackpot.) > The CRU folks conspired to keep data from him in order to prevent him from making further corrections to Briffa's hockey stick. I think it's a matter of the public record that he's been highly antagonistic to them. Are they "conspiring" or simply beginning to respond in kind? The latter is far more plausible to me. > With regards your point c), the people who conspired to hide data now claim that other data was lost. With regards to my (c), it's more that you were speculatively (or dishonestly) implying something that isn't true. > With regards to a hacking war, I wasn't advocating it. I'm simply pointing out that the recent incident does give us evidence that the consensus (which is not a substitute for solid science, BTW) is manufactured. That is just one interpretation of the emails. An equally plausible interpretation is that these scientists are under intense political attack, taking it personally and getting angry, and beginning to unwisely respond in kind.

yummyfajitas 17y ago