Enough worshipping and idolazing!
John Archibald Wheeler was certainly among the better American physicists of the 20th century.
But let us not start another cult here. There is already a quite serious Einstein cult, and even minor Hawking-cult and Witten-cult. I wonder why there is no Faraday-cult or Prandtl-cult. Maybe these people had much more practical sense to be worhsipped by a bunch of irrational idolaters.
Feynman spoke highly of Wheeler, he had a deep respect for the man.
However if you look closely you will see that
Wheeler introduced one of the most bizarre ideas in Physics - the concept of black hole (a space-time singularity). Nature does not usually allow true singularities to develop, there is always another process that kicks in to smooth things up. The black hole concept is an artificial entity which can be called upon whenever Astrophysics ends up in trouble trying to explain observational idea. Since then people invoke the concept of black hole in more and more places where it does not belong. Black holes grow to giant sizes, sitting at the center of each galaxy, they collide and multiply like rabbits in modern astrophysical theories. And yet, black holes are entities that could never be directly observed (yeah Hawking radiation you'll say) and thus this is an unfalsifiable concept, much like 12 devils sitting on a tip of a needle. So people can use it as often as they like since you cannot prove that black holes cannot exist based on the current knowledge.
Physics has long lost its critical ability, the field suffers from excessive conformity and supression of dissent. It is going nowhere anytime soon.
Rest in piece, Dr. Wheeler.
Dawkins is one of these arrogant "know it all" individuals, who think they know better than the rest. A true scientist is supposed to keep his/her options open. You do not like the naive idea of a personal God that gives and takes? There are other views of God, just look at the Eastern philosophies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism
There are some fundamental problems in Natural Sciences for which there is no simple solution. Darwin's Theory of Evolution explains how species evolve from other species and its basic premises have been confirmed time and time again. But what is the origin of Life itself? Currently there is no viable answer. There is not a single shred of evidence that something that is alive can appear from something that is not alive. The definition of what is "life" is itself a touchy subject, but let us say that we can draw the line somewhere (an amoeba let's say). It could be that life had always existed in the Cosmos in one form or another (you know, the Force, the Tao, Vril etc.). People cannot comprehend infinity and limitless, because we are ourselves weak finite bounded creatures.
Here are some things to think about (Phyllotaxis):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllotaxis
People also usually do not distingush the subject of religion, as a social practice, from theism as a philosophy. There is a huge difference.
For example Islam-Christianity-Judaism are religions, Taoism is more of a philosophy.
It is the blind worshipping of ancient tribal rituals and unquestionable submission to authority, that forces more open minded individuals towards atheism. But atheism has its own problems. Samuel Beckett once said that an atheist is not someone who does not believe in God, but someone who wants to believe but he can't. Sometimes it gets pretty lonely out there.
"The Kingdom of God is spread out on Earth, but people do not see it."
Astrology is not such a bullshit as some might believe. Putting aside the connections to stars and all, it is really mostly a method of stereotyping, based on statistical analysis of data.
People born in a particular period of the year tend to have similar mood patterns. This is not such an outlandish claim if you accept that the initial and boundary conditions may affect somewhat the further evolution of people's characters.
Yes, I am a scientist, but I have my own reasons not to reject totally Astrology. Some time ago I met a woman who was Gemini. Well, read the description for that sign folks:
http://www.astrology-online.com/gemini.htm
It is all true, unfortunately. I cried like a baby:(
Slashdot Mirror
Enough worshipping and idolazing! John Archibald Wheeler was certainly among the better American physicists of the 20th century. But let us not start another cult here. There is already a quite serious Einstein cult, and even minor Hawking-cult and Witten-cult. I wonder why there is no Faraday-cult or Prandtl-cult. Maybe these people had much more practical sense to be worhsipped by a bunch of irrational idolaters. Feynman spoke highly of Wheeler, he had a deep respect for the man. However if you look closely you will see that Wheeler introduced one of the most bizarre ideas in Physics - the concept of black hole (a space-time singularity). Nature does not usually allow true singularities to develop, there is always another process that kicks in to smooth things up. The black hole concept is an artificial entity which can be called upon whenever Astrophysics ends up in trouble trying to explain observational idea. Since then people invoke the concept of black hole in more and more places where it does not belong. Black holes grow to giant sizes, sitting at the center of each galaxy, they collide and multiply like rabbits in modern astrophysical theories. And yet, black holes are entities that could never be directly observed (yeah Hawking radiation you'll say) and thus this is an unfalsifiable concept, much like 12 devils sitting on a tip of a needle. So people can use it as often as they like since you cannot prove that black holes cannot exist based on the current knowledge. Physics has long lost its critical ability, the field suffers from excessive conformity and supression of dissent. It is going nowhere anytime soon. Rest in piece, Dr. Wheeler.
Dawkins is one of these arrogant "know it all" individuals, who think they know better than the rest. A true scientist is supposed to keep his/her options open. You do not like the naive idea of a personal God that gives and takes? There are other views of God, just look at the Eastern philosophies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism There are some fundamental problems in Natural Sciences for which there is no simple solution. Darwin's Theory of Evolution explains how species evolve from other species and its basic premises have been confirmed time and time again. But what is the origin of Life itself? Currently there is no viable answer. There is not a single shred of evidence that something that is alive can appear from something that is not alive. The definition of what is "life" is itself a touchy subject, but let us say that we can draw the line somewhere (an amoeba let's say). It could be that life had always existed in the Cosmos in one form or another (you know, the Force, the Tao, Vril etc.). People cannot comprehend infinity and limitless, because we are ourselves weak finite bounded creatures. Here are some things to think about (Phyllotaxis): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllotaxis People also usually do not distingush the subject of religion, as a social practice, from theism as a philosophy. There is a huge difference. For example Islam-Christianity-Judaism are religions, Taoism is more of a philosophy. It is the blind worshipping of ancient tribal rituals and unquestionable submission to authority, that forces more open minded individuals towards atheism. But atheism has its own problems. Samuel Beckett once said that an atheist is not someone who does not believe in God, but someone who wants to believe but he can't. Sometimes it gets pretty lonely out there. "The Kingdom of God is spread out on Earth, but people do not see it."
Astrology is not such a bullshit as some might believe. Putting aside the connections to stars and all, it is really mostly a method of stereotyping, based on statistical analysis of data. People born in a particular period of the year tend to have similar mood patterns. This is not such an outlandish claim if you accept that the initial and boundary conditions may affect somewhat the further evolution of people's characters. Yes, I am a scientist, but I have my own reasons not to reject totally Astrology. Some time ago I met a woman who was Gemini. Well, read the description for that sign folks: http://www.astrology-online.com/gemini.htm It is all true, unfortunately. I cried like a baby :(