Re: [閒聊] 業餘人士的「論文」

看板Physics作者 (BrowningZen)時間5年前 (2020/03/12 18:34), 5年前編輯推噓8(8推 0噓 11→)
留言19則, 9人參與, 5年前最新討論串2/5 (看更多)
節錄自 HOW TO BECOME A BAD THEORETICAL PHYSICIST by Gerard 't Hooft //Here is how to become a bad theorist: Compare yourself with Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Paul Dirac, or other celebrities in theoretical physics, and r each a conclusion in favor of yourself. Note that good theoreticians do not cons ider these famous physicists as saints; none of them were infallible, but the fe w instances where they could be corrected are well-known by historians of scienc e, and do not have any effect on modern physics. You may consider the option of connecting your work with mystery topics such as telepathy and consciousness. Make outrageous claims of having solved long standi ng problems. Of course, you expect that you will become famous, but unfortunatel y, only a few really good theoretical physicists have equations and effects name d after them. This is because colleagues recognize their importance and since th ey want to give names to equations and effects anyway, they bestow the discovere rs with that honor. The bad theoretical physicist, in anticipation, names his own equations and effects, and even his entire theories, after himself right awa y. The impudence to attach your own name to whatever you claim to have discover ed is considered improper in science, and in practice it betrays amateurism and incompetence. If a good theoretician refers to an equation to which colleagues have attached his/her own name, he/she uses a different description if available .// -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 219.77.78.4 (香港) ※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Physics/M.1584009263.A.2A0.html
推
03/12 19:09, 5年前 , 1F
節錄「自」
03/12 19:09, 1F
※ 編輯: BrowningZen (219.77.78.4 香港), 03/12/2020 19:34:00
→
03/12 21:18, 5年前 , 2F
這跟前篇文章的關係是什麼？我看不出來，能否交代清楚？
03/12 21:18, 2F
懂的就會懂囉
推
03/12 23:42, 5年前 , 3F
阿伯問號
03/12 23:42, 3F
推
03/12 23:43, 5年前 , 4F
偷笑，只有我看的懂嗎呵呵
03/12 23:43, 4F
※ 編輯: BrowningZen (219.77.78.4 香港), 03/13/2020 10:52:42
推
03/13 11:24, 5年前 , 5F
壞wwwww
03/13 11:24, 5F
→
03/13 11:26, 5年前 , 6F
看不懂的基本上就是這篇文在酸的對象啊
03/13 11:26, 6F
推
03/13 12:42, 5年前 , 7F
反正就是對科學的心態不正確吧，我覺得原因也是某些科
03/13 12:42, 7F
→
03/13 12:42, 5年前 , 8F
普文或傳記，會把科學家捧得很高，類似英雄主義的感覺
03/13 12:42, 8F
→
03/13 12:42, 5年前 , 9F
，還有科幻電影、小說之類的影響
03/13 12:42, 9F
→
03/13 12:50, 5年前 , 10F
hank780420，哦，怎麼說？能否交代清楚？
03/13 12:50, 10F
→
03/13 12:51, 5年前 , 11F
另，我還是不懂這兩段話跟前篇文章的關係是什麼。
03/13 12:51, 11F
→
03/13 12:59, 5年前 , 12F
確切地說，我看不出這兩段所批評的對象跟那篇文章的作者
03/13 12:59, 12F
→
03/13 13:00, 5年前 , 13F
有什麼關係。是否能更明確出來？還是只是想打稻草人？
03/13 13:00, 13F
這就各自解讀囉 我認為這篇文章批判了對科學跟對科學家的心態，還有那種為滿足自己為做而做的神秘理論 前一篇滿滿就是這種內容，以為自己發現了什麼驚世秘密 前者就算了，畢竟各人有自己看法 可是後者就不是在做科學 比方說幫現有定義改個名字當新的，或者定義沒有物理意義的量 什麼什麼東西來平方一下，什麼什麼東西來除一下，整篇文章像亂碼一樣在湊數字 為什麼基本電荷是1/e^2? 為什麼宏觀跟微觀物理要除10000? 加一堆不相關的東西，什麼宏觀微觀，什麼廣相統一場論就當科學的話，跟水桶八年那個差 在哪? 要引用名言我也很拿手 “你浪費了我們每個人一分鐘，你想想你總共浪費了大家多少時間”- 高中班主任(2012) 喔那篇文章最後還有這樣一段 //General Relativity is a great example of a doctrine that is simple enough for self-taught "scientists" to put their noses into, and complicated enough for the m to make numerous mistakes.//
→
03/13 14:07, 5年前 , 14F
喜歡把某些科學家捧很高 其實並不只有民科才會這樣
03/13 14:07, 14F
→
03/13 14:07, 5年前 , 15F
崇拜某些英雄或明星 其實是理論物理長久以來的傳統文化
03/13 14:07, 15F
推
03/13 16:35, 5年前 , 16F
比如說被本板桶八年的那位嗎
03/13 16:35, 16F
4 ※ 編輯: BrowningZen (219.77.78.4 香港), 03/13/2020 19:59:01 ※ 編輯: BrowningZen (219.77.78.4 香港), 03/13/2020 20:08:18
→
03/16 13:54, 5年前 , 17F
我還在想說我不記得有桶八年的... 他是被桶18年吧那位？
03/16 13:54, 17F
推
03/16 14:11, 5年前 , 18F
#1SxujjQu yw1002不是桶3013天～8年嗎？
03/16 14:11, 18F
推
03/16 14:53, 5年前 , 19F
是在講yw1002哦 我以為是在講pleasetoyou
03/16 14:53, 19F
‣ 更多 BrowningZen 的文章
文章代碼(AID): #1UQX0lAW (Physics)
討論串 (同標題文章)
以下文章回應了本文：
完整討論串 (本文為第 2 之 5 篇)：
排序： 最新先 | 最舊先 | 留言數
在新視窗開啟完整討論串 (共5篇)
‣ 更多 BrowningZen 的文章
文章代碼(AID): #1UQX0lAW (Physics)