Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>)
Newsgroups: net.books,net.physics
Subject: Re: Re: Superforce by Davies(?)?  (reposting)
Message-ID: <9883@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 11-Apr-85 13:18:00 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.9883
Posted: Thu Apr 11 13:18:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 14-Apr-85 03:27:11 EST
References: <129@tardis.UUCP> <10033@tardis.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 16
Xref: watmath net.books:1658 net.physics:2442

> 	By the way, speaking of people making comparisons between physics and
> "non-objective reality" and other mystical things -- that seems to be becoming
> a fashion even among some respected scientists.  I can't figure out what the
> deal is.  And articles I have seen in Scientific American on advanced physics
> topics, such as the 11-dimensional space model, much of the more recent stuff
> on the quark theory, and other similar things, seem to be as uninformative as
> occult writings (and I can't understand the ones in the more technical
> journals such as Science at all).  This could be just because my brain is too
> primitive on the evolutionary scale to comprehend such high concepts, but I
> can't get rid of the suspicion that a lot of the people making these theories
> and writing these articles don't know what they're talking about.

You are merely seeing the consequences of a serious problem with
establishment philosophy that has undermined people's ability to
identify what constitutes genuine knowledge.  This subject has
been accurately covered in the writings of the late Ayn Rand, q.v.