Who the hell are you,
John Horgan?

    1.0   The definition of idiot

    Another popular tactic used by the mathematical physicists is to invoke names and credentials during the debate. The
    idea is to belittle the opponent, to show that he is isolated, that there is no one behind him.  A good example of this tactic
    in action is found at  The Edge. A prolific science writer, John Horgan, opines that science and common sense should be
    compatible. Clearly, contemporary science and intuition are not. Fanatic relativist and string theorist  Leonard Susskind
    instantly lashes out in a personal attack on Horgan:

     " Whose common sense? John Horgan's (admittedly a non-scientist) I presume… Instead
        of dyspeptically railing against what he plainly does not understand, Horgan would do
        better to take a few courses in algebra, calculus, quantum mechanics, and string theory."

    Horgan’s common sense? No, Lenny! The common sense of every person on the planet, you included! You admit so
    much in your irrational defense of Mathematical Physics…

     " Modern science is difficult and often counterintuitive…Where intuition and common sense
        failed, they had to create new forms of intuition, mainly through the use of abstract mathe-
        matics… When common sense fails, uncommon sense must be created…Of course we
        must use uncommon sense sensibly but we hardly need Horgan to tell us that… human
        cognition does not operate according to principles of common sense."

    [Use common sense sensibly? Relativists are indeed geniuses at creating idiotic catch

    So clearly, pursuant to Susskind's own words, it's not only Horgan’s common sense! But Susskind's attempt to isolate
    and belittle Horgan is what is at issue.

    What Horgan did was strike a raw nerve, so much so that it drove Susskind to publicly confess that the establishment
    no longer has common sense. The mathematicians have concluded that they can no longer trust their collective
    common senses:

     " This violates our intuitive notions of causality.  However, intuition is not an infallible guide,
        so we must be careful.  Is time travel really impossible, or is it merely another phenomenon
        where 'impossible' means 'nature is weirder than we think?" [1]

    [How can the people at Riverside regard themselves as scientists if they're still struggling
     with this issue? Time travel belongs exclusively to science fantasy. It has nothing to do
     with Science. Only a stupid moron of Mathematics still entertains the possibility of
     traveling to the future or to the past!]

    So they have put their faith in the God of Math and today have more supernatural and irrational explanations for
    physical phenomena than traditional religions.

    Let's see... Here's a definition I found in the dictionary... Perhaps it helps characterize mainstream science:

    idiotic: senselessly foolish or stupid
    senseless: nonsensical or meaningless

    So I guess I'm not very far from the truth! By definition, the mathematical physicists are nonsensical and, therefore,  
    idiotic and  stupid. They apparently seem to take pride in describing themselves as such. So who am I to contradict
    them? I don't even have a Templeton Prize!

    2.0   The methods

    In his fanatic attempt to defend his religion at all costs and sway the jury in his favor, Susskind uses two methods
    to belittle Horgan:

    The subtle manner

    The subtle way to gain strategic ground in a discussion has now become part of mainstream protocol and etiquette.
    The first thing a theorist wishes you to know is his impressive title. In this seemingly inoffensive way the mathematician
    tells you:

    1. How long it took him to get his degree

    2. How much experience he has regarding the problem at hand

    3. That he has been recognized as an expert by his peers

    4. Why he is qualified to serve as judge between you and him

    Susskind must be a genius. He is not just some unknown associate professor talking out of his ass.
    He is:

    Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics, Stanford University

      [Wow! What a bumbling fool I am, Professor Block, sir! I am deeply sorry
       to have confused you for a commoner.]

    Another famous star of relativity, Stephen Hawking, advertises that he is not only an expert in Physics, but also:

          Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University in England

    He emphasizes in every book he writes and won't let you forget that this is not your ordinary chair, but the very seat
    the mighty Newt sat his butt upon.

      [Oh, please forgive me Professor Luke. I had no idea... I wonder how much
       your chair would fetch at Christie's.]

    So how dare you question people with such credentials! You are a worm crawling at their feet, an insignificant mortal
    trying to measure up to the gods. They don't step on you because they might spoil their Guccies.

    Well, seen in this light, I feel embarrassed already. I am not a Felix er...whatever professor (whoever he was) [2]  and I
    don't have St. Luke's Chair [3] under my buns. I barely have my little old Bill Gaede stool to rest my cheeks on. Three
    legs! Couldn't afford the four-legged one! No arm rest or recliner. A cup of coffee now and then, and certainly I have
    no Nobel or Templeton Prizes under my armpits to boast about like other illustrious gents of relativity such as
    Shelly and Paul.

      [Oh, me! Their names alone make goose bumps run down my neck. How
        much wisdom! In just these two MVPs!]

    So, I guess that does it for me.

    But you see, when you meet a guy on the street who challenges you to a duel, it makes no sense for you to demand
    to see his credentials. It is futile to know how many boxing matches he's had in the past or whether he has trained
    as hard as you for the past year. We will only find out who is the champ after one man remains standing. You may
    have boxed all your life and trained very hard at the gym, but here comes this little nobody out of nowhere and beats
    the living crap out of you.

    The overt tactic

    The overt thing that relativists do is throw the list of who's who of relativity at you. Susskind tells Horgan that:

     " Many, if not all, of the most distinguished theoretical physicists in the
        world, Steven Weinberg, Edward Witten, John Schwarz, Joseph Polchinski,
        Nathan Seiberg, Juan Maldacena, David Gross, Savas Dimopoulos,
        Andrei Linde, Renata Kallosh, among many others, most certainly
        acknowledge no such thing. These physicists are full of ideas about how
        to test modern concepts from superstrings in the sky to supersymmetry
        in the lab."

    An impressive list I should say! Surely, all these luminaries can't be wrong. Perhaps we should learn to curtsy when
    their names are read. What wisdom! What authority! What must I do to get their autographs?  So much for Sagan's
    Baloney Detection Kit rule number three:

    " Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no 'authorities')." [4]

    Relativists have to decide once and for all whether we should listen to idiots who took courses in college from other
    ignorant idiots or whether we are going to allow people with new ideas -- whatever their nature -- to enter the market.
    If we must rely exclusively on what is already learned in the universities and the universities have it all wrong, then
    we are relying on authority and perpetuating the status quo. We are not making allowances for total revolution,
    which is exactly what the professors from Harvard to Cambridge fear the most. The establishment does not want to
    experience a French or Russian Revolution in Science. The results are that we live in a catch-22 situation where we
    are allowed to publish only what the secret peer reviewers of relativity approve. And guess what? If it's not mainstream
    Mathematical Physics, it simply won't see the light. Yet not a single idiot from Stanford to MIT can tell you what light is,
    what a field is, what time is, what mass is, what energy is, or what gravity is. Not a single idiot in any 'Physics'
    Department from CalTech to Princeton can illustrate for you a point particle, a string, or space-time. And not a single
    moron of Mathematics from Cambridge to Oxford can define a point, a line, or a plane. This should be kindergarten stuff.  
    Therefore, we absolutely need a revolution. The bozos and buffoons who work in Physics and Mathematics Departments
    of the universities of the world have a false sense of security. If they are still writing about time travel, black holes,
    flat universes, and dark matter in scientific journals, they know absolutely nothing about how the Universe works or
    about the laws of Physics. We need to erase the board and start over.
Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
Do you know who I am?

I am His Excellency, the Monk
Martin Luther Bill, I am.

I got a BS in college!

    (1) A -5 point starting credit.

    (10) 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence
    of sanity.

    (11) 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you
    have been working on it.

     " Leonard Susskind: Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics,
        Stanford University" [6] [7]

     " Career History: B.S., 1962, City College of New York..." [8]

    (8) 5 points for each mention of 'Einstein,' 'Hawkins' [sic] or 'Feynman'

     " Many, if not all, of the most distinguished theoretical physicists in
        the world -- Steven Weinberg, Edward Witten, John Schwarz, Joseph
        Polchinski, Nathan Seiberg, Juan Maldacena, David Gross, Savas
        Dimopoulos, Andrei Linde, Renata Kallosh... Einstein's four dimensional
        elastic space-time"

    (19) 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a 'paradigm shift'.

    (23) 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

     " Where intuition and common sense failed, they had to create new
        forms of intuition, mainly through the use of abstract mathematics"

    (24)  20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded
    to your past theories.

     " John Horgan, the man who famously declared The End of Science
        shortly & before the two greatest cosmological discoveries since
        the Big Bang, has now come forth to tell us that the world's leading
        physicists and cognitive scientists are wasting their time. Why?
        Because they are substituting difficult-to-understand and often
        shockingly unintuitive concepts for 'everyman' common sense.
        Whose common sense? John Horgan's (admittedly a non-scientist)
        I presume."

    (26) 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

     " the infinite dimensional Hilbert space of quantum mechanics; the
        difficult mathematics of string theory; and, if necessary, multiple
        universes. When common sense fails, uncommon sense must be

    (33) 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers,
    or brownshirts.

     " It was used against Einstein, Bohr, and Heisenberg, and even today
        is being used against Darwin by the right wing agents of 'intelligent
        design' "

    (36) 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for
    the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your
    theories will be forced to recant.)

     " He might then appreciate, even celebrate, the wonderful and amazing
        capacity of the human mind to find uncommon ways to comprehend
        the incomprehensible."

    Hey, what do you know? Maybe I'm wrong. Baez's grading system does work after all! This big shot Block fella
    has already earned over 180 credit points without even trying. And his wasn't even a technical paper!
So you see, father? All these celebrities can’t possibly
be wrong. At the Relativity Club we have scientifically
determined that only very smart individuals can grow
beards. People with lower IQs can barely grow
moustaches. The dumbest ones are incapable of growing
beards or moustaches at all! Ha, ha, ha, stupid fools!  Ha,
ha, ha. I just realized that  you don't... mmmh...

J. Horgan, In defense of common sense, The Edge (2005)
Monky Business
Martin Luther Bill
Church of Relativity


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            

        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008