Re: [閒聊] 業餘人士的「論文」

[BrowningZen (BrowningZen)]

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 sunev: 節錄「自」
※ 編輯: BrowningZen (219.77.78.4 香港), 03/12/2020 19:34:00
→ s1290961: 這跟前篇文章的關係是什麼？我看不出來，能否交代清楚？
懂的就會懂囉
推 Minesweeper: 阿伯問號
推 chemmachine: 偷笑，只有我看的懂嗎呵呵
※ 編輯: BrowningZen (219.77.78.4 香港), 03/13/2020 10:52:42
推 HDT: 壞wwwww
→ hank780420: 看不懂的基本上就是這篇文在酸的對象啊
推 breadking: 反正就是對科學的心態不正確吧，我覺得原因也是某些科
→ breadking: 普文或傳記，會把科學家捧得很高，類似英雄主義的感覺
→ breadking: ，還有科幻電影、小說之類的影響
→ s1290961: hank780420，哦，怎麼說？能否交代清楚？
→ s1290961: 另，我還是不懂這兩段話跟前篇文章的關係是什麼。
→ s1290961: 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
→ s1290961: 有什麼關係。是否能更明確出來？還是只是想打稻草人？
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.//
→ Eriri: 喜歡把某些科學家捧很高 其實並不只有民科才會這樣
→ Eriri: 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
推 jackliao1990: 比如說被本板桶八年的那位嗎
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
→ HDT: 我還在想說我不記得有桶八年的... 他是被桶18年吧那位？
推 sunev: #1SxujjQu yw1002不是桶3013天～8年嗎？
推 HDT: 是在講yw1002哦 我以為是在講pleasetoyou