Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Rob Sheldon on who gets credit for science discoveries and insight and why

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG I just put another pot on.

Noting that some have been making great claims for Einstein’s theory of general relativity (greater, perhaps, than the ones he himself would have made), like “The reward for harnessing Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity is nothing less than the key to understanding the universe, the origin of time, and the evolution of all the stars and galaxies in the cosmos”:

General relativity (GR) is no more the key to the origin of time than Newtonian Mechanics or Thermodynamics. It reminds me of a paper by historian of science Stephen Brush, who taught at UMd when I was in grad school. Brush noted that the “Bose-Einstein” condensation was Bose’s work, Einstein merely translated it into German for the Zietschrift fur Physik when the Royal Society rejected the paper. So why does Einstein get the credit? Brush called it “The Matthew Effect”, citing Matt 25:29, and it now has its own Wikipedia page. In Jesus’ parable, the rich ruler comes back from his journey and takes away the 1 talent and gives it to the man with 5 talents. “To those who have, will more be given”.

This is true in my area of space physics, where the name “Alfven” is attributed to things Hannes Alfven knew nothing about–and in his own lifetime, asked why they were named for him. I think the theorist who is promoting it, hopes that a famous name will lend credence to his ideas, even if they aren’t named for him.

And that is certainly true of cosmology. Very little of the era of “precision” cosmology is actually precise. What it amounts to, is the fitting of arbitrary polynomials to the data more and more precisely. The polynomials, on the other hand, are pulled out of a hat and attributed to Einstein when in fact, he would likely have disowned these metaphysically messy objects. It is time for “critical probing” indeed.

Pos-Darwinista kindly paases the raw sugar down the table and writes to say that Stephen Brush’s papers are here.

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology) for obstacles to any such probing.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Hero worship seems to be ingrained in the psyche of the human species. This is the main reason, IMO, that progress in physics and computer science has come to a standstill. Physics has a rather crowded pantheon of gods and demigods with Einstein and Feynman at the top. Computer science, by contrast, seems to have just one almighty god at the top of their pantheon, Alan Turing. Charles Babbage and John Von Neumann are a distant second, even though they contributed more to modern computer science than anyone else. Physics is handicapped by its mistaken belief in nonsensical concepts like physical space and time, and continuity. Computer science, OTOH, is paralyzed by their belief in the algorithm as the basis of computing. It is depressing. Both fields are worshipping false gods who have led them astray. Now they are lost in a lost world of their own making.Mapou
July 22, 2014
July
07
Jul
22
22
2014
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
The Stephen Brush archive was a gold mine. I found the first reference to Matthew Effect in a 1978 Paper. I also found that SB had sparred with Henry Morris and campaigned to keep Creationism out of schools. When I met him, he was researching a paper on Hannes Alfven, and evidently completed several papers, trying to figure out why the man kept making successful predictions, but without acceptance by the community. Science, evidently, doesn't always reward the ones who are right--sometimes politics are more important, which in this case, was Sidney Chapman. But then, most curiously, I found a 2000 publication in which he claimed: "The new “Intelligent Design” theory is a “soft” Creationism -- it makes no testable statements, in contrast to Young Earth Creationism which makes many testable statements, all of which have been tested and refuted. Both versions, along with postmodern skepticism about the validity of scientific knowledge, undermine public support for science." Not surprisingly, Brush was not a Kuhnian, but where did he get his false information on ID? Two publications in 2003, 2004 with the NCSE are the probable cause. Even historians of science, evidently, can be misled about history. Perhaps we should start the field of "History of Science Historians" to set the record straight.Robert Sheldon
July 22, 2014
July
07
Jul
22
22
2014
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply