Comments on: Occupy Federal Science: “Transformative” Research Can’t Come From Milquetoast

By: Jacob Scott

Jacob Scott — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 12:21:25 +0000

I’d like to disagree with Georg -

“Laws of nature” as described in the quote ARE invented inasmuch as they way that we state them (our models) are by nature imperfect descriptions of observed phenomena. Sure, we can’t ‘invent’ the way something interacts with matter or behaves given a certain system, but we certainly do invent the description of it.

This is analogous to an artist who certainly does ‘invent’ their interpretation of something in the form of a painting or sculpture, but they certainly didn’t invent the object or idea being represented.

By: Curious Wavefunction

Curious Wavefunction — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:39:32 +0000

Your point is taken but I suspect the word “invented” is used here as a literary device, a figure of speech that indicates Einstein’s disproportionate contribution to both fields. As another example, in a recent review of Gino Segre’s book about George Gamow and Max Delbruck, Freeman Dyson said that “Gamow invented Big Bang cosmology, Delbruck invented molecular biology” and I am pretty sure Dyson knows the technical difference between discovery and invention.

By: Amos Zeeberg (Discover Web Editor)

Amos Zeeberg (Discover Web Editor) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:30:51 +0000

@Georg: Agree that that bit about quantum physics is sloppy, but note that it’s part of the blockquote from The Guardian. Also, the writer and the publication are both English, not American.

U-S-A! U-S-A!

By: Georg

Georg — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:41:20 +0000

“”And that is how he invented quantum physics and relativity.”"

Very silly in two aspects:
- One cannot invent natures laws, they are discovered.
- QM was not discovered by Einstein, this was done by
Plank some years before.
This typically american “in case one does not know, lets blame Einstein”
is really disgusting. A “science writer” should know better!
Georg

By: The Sanity Inspector

The Sanity Inspector — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 01:21:39 +0000

But doesn’t the current arrangement also serve the very valuable function of screening out ambient nuttiness? Funding dollars are finite, after all, and it would not be a better thing if all the Velikovskys, von Danikens, and Lysenkos out there got an equal shot at them.