Physicists v. economists

People living in glass houses should not throw stones.

Doctor of Physics Sean Carroll recently threw some stones at economists. According to Doctor Carroll economists cheat their data and they cannot be trusted.

This is incredible arrogance. Physicists make their living by doctoring data.

Let’s compare the graphics.

This is the original item.

Doctor Carroll intentionally misrepresents this graph as a fit to data in order to continue the physics mythology that physics is a precise science and Doctors of physics fit their data honestly.

In the comments section AJ wrote that

this line is not being fit to the data. It is merely a curve which indicates ‘good’ ratios are below the curve and ‘bad’ ratios are outside the curve.

Now let’s look at Doctor Carroll’s curve.

As Ian Clarke commented

Regardless of where the points actually lay, if you insist on drawing a line, and you require that the line goes through 0,0 – then it is inevitable that the line will indicate a positive correlation between corporate tax rate and government revenue.

The curve fitting you criticize is indeed flawed and manipulative, but so is your line-fitting, because by insisting on a line, you make a positive correlation inevitable regardless of the actual data.

But let’s not quibble about minor statistical details.

Let’s look at this fitted line:

There is something missing. Where are the data points? In order to save their religious doctrine of Big Bang physicists fit a line to no data.

Which is the greater fraud? Fitting a line to non-existing data is the biggest fraud. 

“Fitting a line” to non-existing data is called a definition. Take a blank page draw a line on it and then fill in the axes. Throw the dart first and circle the bullseye around it.

But there is data.

Physicists observed the galaxies for 50 years and extrapolated to 6 billion years. That’s like as if you observed the weather in Central Park for 0.0000000001 second and then wrote the entire past and future weather report of the entire globe. The only difference is that weatherman’s report will be found to be wrong when compared to the actual weather. Scholastic doctors of physics do not need to fear any punishment for their criminal extrapolation because no contradicting evidence can exist.

People who extrapolate 50 years of observations to 6,000,000,000 years should not throw curve fitting stones to economists. Physicists are the real crooks here, not the economists.

Doctrine over mathematics

Here’s another statement by a physicist putting philosophy before mathematics:

Sabine Hossenfelder mentioned the possible consequences for arrival time of photons, but stressed that this comes only from a phenomenological model with no relation to underlying theory.

It is clear that physicists distinguish between phenomenology, i.e. saving of the phenomena, and the underlying philosophical principles. These principles are what scholastic physicists value the most.

Previous example about physicists’ preference of doctrine over mathematics.


Does one attempt to unify commutative and non-commutative mathematics?

No. That would be silly.

It is as silly to try to unify what is essentially two contradictory mathematical formalisms labeled GR and QM.

Nevertheless, Doctors of Physics have been trying to unify GR and QM for over 75 years. Why? Ecumenism is one of the fundamental concepts of scholasticism. Any doctor who spends over two decades to master subtleties of GR and QM can only perpetuate his career by proposing to unify two subjects he made the most investments on. What is called science today is coupled to the career concerns of scholastic doctors of physics. This has always been like this since the European Middle Ages. Somehow European scholasticism crossed the Atlantic in the form of Newtonism and established itself in the New Continent.

Fortunately, in the United States, starting with Benjamin Franklin, and continuing with Thomas Edison and subsequent garagemen true science, under the name of technology, have been flourishing. Edison hired mathematicians and physicists when he needed computations done. Today we would do those kind of computations by computers.

More and more physicists have been reduced to redundant human computers. They are no longer good at it either. They have become pure scholastic philosophers whose polemical language is pidgin mathematics. That’s why United States government is now proposing to spend some money to produce physicists who can calculate. Today they call it phenomenology. In pre-Newtonian times this was called saving the phenomena.

Ptolemaic epicycles == Saving the phenomena
Standard model analytical epicycles == Phenomenology

Gauge physics

The United States standard railroad gauge derives from the original specification for an Imperial Roman war chariot.

 The story of how standard units come to be “things” as illustrated in this railroad gauge theory, applies as well to physics. An example is the constant G.

The only difference is that physicists are crooked scholastic professional doctors. What does this have to do with railroad gauge or G? No one would claim that the United States standard railroad gauge is the absolute true gauge of nature. Everyone knows railroad gauge is just a conventional standard.

G is also a conventional unit defined by physicists as the gauge of force. But physicists as unethical professionals have been marketing G as the absolute true constant of nature.

A Martian physicists making observations on Earth would indeed notice that the distance between two rails on the American continent is a constant. But is it a universal constant of Nature? It is not. In Europe the gauge is different.

For physicists observations contradicting their doctrine is no problem. Physicists have absolute authority to define. So they will define the different gauge in Europe as an anomaly.

This is the oldest trick in scholasticism. The standards of the dominant doctors are defined as the true standards. The rest are anomalies that dominant doctors explain away as a natural consequence of their true standard.

Yet another proof that physics is scholasticism incarnate.