Tag Archives: science

LIONEL PODCAST: The Insatiable Human Trait of Being Weird

Often quoted, rarely understood. Niels Henrik David Bohr. Love the guy. How great is this quote? Seriously. Just let it marinate.

We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.

– Said to Wolfgang Pauli after his presentation of Heisenberg‘s and Pauli’s nonlinear field theory of elementary particles, at Columbia University (1958), as reported by F.J. Dyson in his paper “Innovation in Physics” (Scientific American, 199, No. 3, September 1958, pp. 74-82 – reprinted in “JingShin Theoretical Physics Symposium in Honor of Professor Ta-You Wu,” edited by Jong-Ping Hsu & Leonardo Hsu, Singapore ; River Edge, NJ : World Scientific, 1998, pp. 73-90, here: p. 84).

And this beaut. Shout out to Max.

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning. 
— Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, trans. F. Gaynor (1950), 97. Quoted in David L. Hull, Science as a Process (1990), 379.

LIONEL PODCAST: With No Sense of Rudimentary Science Americans Are Being Led to the Slaughter

Get ready for the undoing. Without the ability to reason and critically think and apply issue analysis, without rudimentary critical thinking abilities, and without a deep-seated and earned skepticism, we are doomed as a society and species. There are avalanches of data before your very eyes thanks to the Internet that are providing clues and data of impending cataclysms, but it seems that all we’re interested in for the most part is the latest photoshopped picture of Kim Kardashian’s steatopygian arse or the latest viral video of a duck playing the piano. The mainstream news media monkeys are helping not in the least for they’ve been selected for “talents” that have nothing to do with brilliance, deep-thinking or analytical skill sets. No, without abecedarian issue deconstruction and a minimal conversance of science, you will be lost in the proverbial shuffle. Herein I respectfully attempt to explain why that is and what can be done to change that.