Science shouldn't rely on the dedicated few in times of stagnation.

I mean, obviously they should try, but if someone were to succeed, wouldn't that make them the Einstein to revolutionize physics?

well that's part of the problem, i think. when anyone has a major success in basic science, we put them on a pedestal as if they were basically different from everyone else (and even hijack their brain when they die, as with Einstein). but really they're just the ones who did it right, following the basic philosophy and methods of science, with self-confidence and tenacity.

we should train all young scientists properly in the basics, which we don't do very well now, and as if anyone could, in principle, make such contributions. then they'd be more common and the Einstein-worshipping mindset could fade away a bit. scientists in general should leave open the dorr to making basic, personal contributions, and not 'let Einstein do it'.

True, and confidence is a big part of that I think. A lot of them might just be too afraid to mess up.

And I mean, IQ is still the main factor in all this, but you don't necessarily need to be quite at Einstein's level even because we have so much more data and resources now than Einstein had

*door

So what's the question? I agree with your meme btw. Do you think science is not progressing at this point?

basic physics is needing better perspective as Loeb suggests. i'm asking who agrees that we should wait for a 'great mind' to find it.

Oh ok i say why wait for someone great, why not be someone great yourself? Some people have a natural ability to excel at things but you won't know unless you try.

absolutely, and everyone brings their own experience and perspective to any question. good ideas can come from anywhere.

Agreed and well said

thanks!

To build upon what we have now to a new level as Einstein did back then, the concepts that this "new Einstein" would have to grasp are unknowably more complex than what Einstein had to figure out. He brought up the idea of a 4th spatial dimension, but someone who comes up with a unified field theory has to work with 11 (At least, according to the best theories we've got. There are many theories out there. I have my own ideas on how things may be back into 4, but no way to test or prove them, or even provide a mathematical model, because I'm still in high school. So... it's basically worthless)

part of the beauty of Einstein's work was the simplicity of his ideas. he took us to a more complete and more accurate view of reality by imagining, to begin with, that things as simple as relative rates of motion and a fixed speed of light have a fundamental importance not just to physical observables but also to the *perception* of physical parameters (like time). so an Einstein-like revolution wouldn't have to be highly complicated. it could just refresh the qualitative understanding of physical concepts. a revolutionary might validate a super-dimensional universe by opening the door to testing such super-dimensionality, or they might instead find a perspective that makes super-dimensionality an unnecessarily complicating idea. or "dark matter" less spooky, or string theory connected to other theories.

the main problem (and i would say fraud) with theories like super-dimensionality, dark matter, string theory and the like is that they aren't obviously testable. they are bunk until they can be shown as successful (or not) at explaining some physical observables. relativity, while certainly 'out there' compared to the more conventional theories of Einstein's time, made testable predictions. the success of relativity depended completely on that fact. modern theories that ignore that basic and essential standard can't succeed.

Loeb thinks "another Einstein" is needed to jumpstart modern physics. what is truly needed, i think, is scientists who respect elementary scientific process and who are willing to disrespect all the bunk while searching for better perspectives. anyone can do that, and if enough of us realize that and act on it, some people will succeed at it.

For sure. Part of that is eliminating the stigma of disagreeing with the mainstream ideas of the time. We did that at the turn of the enlightenment, but in the last half century, it seems to have been lost, at least in certain areas. Imagine if we didn't know about relativity yet and Alex Jones started talking about it. The idea would be discredited so strongly that we would be in the dark about if until any scientist who was alive in Jone's time shuts up or dies.

i agree but as long as publishing papers and getting research grants is a peer-reviewed process, there will be a lot of scientists who want to smother new ideas. so the stigma of disagreement will probably always be with us while science is political. we can choose to see the inertia as challenge that, if well met, leads to greater impact for the ideas that survive. not the best of circumstances, of course, but maybe *big* revolution will be replacing the politics with something more appropriate.

Well, I'm a huge pessimist so i believe that government will (or already has, in some cases) become the main authority on "science" and stop any meaningful progress well using that power to force people to do things against their will. I'm thinking along the lines of a brave new world style government.

well scientists have shown that they alone can't be trusted to make good ethical judgments about what science to do and how to apply it. some oversight needs to be there. if not govt, though (which is largely unqualified at the federal level, to be sure), then who?

The gov can set boundaries like no involuntary human testing without directly owning the scientists and only letting some results be shared

keep on thinking about your ideas. eventually you will be able to test them, so this thinking time should not be wasted.

NICE TRY FBI! NOT TODAY CIA! GOOD PLAY DEA! NOTHING YOU CAN SAY NSA! LEAVE ME BE KGB! DIRTY TRICKS M16! GOOD ATTEMPT AT OBSCURITY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY!

that's an interesting take

yes

They've probably already turned away the next Einstein in the name of social justice and diversity quotas.... How many Asians have been denied?

How about we promote the academic leaders?

the academic leaders are responsible for this kind of problem

That isn't what I meant.

I'm suggesting that the best students be selected, ignoring political agendas.

but those are the people who were selected for decades, and they created this problem. yes, diversification of the talent pool means that some deserving majority candidates will not get support that they otherwise would have had. but even with diversification actions, the realization of a representative talent pool will be long in coming. it would be even longer if nothing is done. and it's not political in its essence, or shouldn't be. it's driven by the aim of non-prejudicial opportunities and rewards. it's the political support being non-uniform that might make it look political.

Several universities are in hot water for turning away stellar students because they were required to give preference to diversity.

You cannot convince me that picking less qualified students is going to be a net positive for science and research.

I'd like to see name and race information banned from college applications. Let them choose based on merit ONLY.

so you're saying let's pretend that historical disadvantages for certain groups didn't and don't exist so that the best and brightest are treated fairly, even though some of the best and brightest are hidden in those groups because of the disadvantages?

i liked your comment on the Big Bang thread since you explained concisely what I think is the simplest, most logical, and most likely explanation of the recent structure and history of the universe. you should work to generalize that approach to other topics to avoid undue sway by your political beliefs.

I'm saying that denying the smartest people a science education will not produce the best scientists. How is that political?

"They've probably already turned away the next Einstein in the name of social justice and diversity quotas...." Pretend you're on a debate team and you have to argue in favor of social justice. If you can't, why not?

Who's denying the smartest people a science education? At schools that have diversity quotas, they take the most promising applicants in each category. And any applicant can and should apply to at least several school to optimize their chances of being accepted somewhere. If a candidate isn't accepted anywhere, it's not clear that they're among the smartest.

My favorite part of high school was being on the debate team. The teacher in charge was often infuriated when I refused to argue certain sides of certain topics. I don't like feeling dirty, so I refused to argue topics or positions that were dirty to me. When I was able to come to logical justification, I could argue a position - I won the debate for legalization of euthanasia at an inter-school debate where I competed.

It doesn't matter to me in which way you attempt to paint "social justice", I cannot see it as anything other than politically justified racism. Where your argument falls short is that I am not advocating for more white representation - I'm arguing for the asians. Racial quotas punish the asian community for their academic achievements. The quotas are creating an entirely new group of victims in the name of reparation.

You cannot bring about equality by enforcing inequality. You will not successfully force achievement on those who are not predisposed to put forth the effort to achieve.

To quote one of my favorite poets:

Well, you can stake that claim
Good work is the key to good fortune
Winners take that praise
Losers seldom take that blame

If you want to bring about true equality - try educating the underrepresented communities in the fine art of self improvement. When it becomes cooler to improve your situation than it does to be part of a gang - you'll start to see the equality you're looking for.

To quote that same poet:

You don't get something for nothing

I saw this quote by Bukowski this morning:

“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”

Bukowski was the human embodiment of a raised middle finger, a lowlife nihilist.

he's got a nice write-up in Wikipedia. i don't have even a short one yet ) :

Did it mention his alcoholism or the way he treated women?

Lefties have the strangest heroes...