How to spot blind followers of the Cult of Mathematical Physics

It's so easy!

When a person encounters arguments which contradict their cherished beliefs, they lash out at it instead of arguing against it. Critics who cannot actually address the substance of an argument rely on attacking the either the appearance of the argument, or the person making the argument instead.  These childish, irrational attacks include sweeping general statements (usually including their FEELINGS about the argument) rather than pointing out their specific disagreements and then providing a rational argument for why they disagree.

Take a look at this response given to Stephen Crothers, an Australian physicist who is a critic of the mainstream mathemagical physics, from Alexander Khalaidovski of the Max Planck Institute. Crothers was attempting to inform him of his analysis of Stephen Hawkin's latest statements concerning Black Holes- a concept which Crothers has refuted mathematically (and Bill Gaede has refuted conceptually).

From: Alexander Khalaidovski <alexander.khalaidovski@aei.mpg.de>
Date: Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hawking's latest incantations on black holes
To: Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@gmail.com>
Sorry, don't speak this languages, only other 6. I would look it up, but the fact that you are too dumb to understand a polite english request, which, at least, seems to be your native language, tells me that all hopes are lost with you.

You know all that is necessary about me. Fine, I will summarize what I need to know about you: You are a looser. All your life has been a failure. You are the kind of person who throws stones at other persons backs, simply: a coward. You keep stalking people because you know you cannot be reached. Your mental evolution thus stopped at an age of about 15. You eternally live the cicle to try and see how far you can go. A boy that never grew up, a boy failing his PhD, a pitiful individual.

Want to go on bothering me, although I never did sth bad to you? You're welcome, on you go. Just promise me something: put in your testament, that once you have finally left this earth somebody sends me one last email to inform me of thiy joyful fact. Sorry, I am too busy with real work to follow a looser's life, but I will be happy to receive this final message from you, it will be the first one, in fact. I will have a small damnatio memoriae party (sorry, you won't understand this one!)

Now you can have your last word, because this is definitely the last email I write you. So please, insult me, write books to me, feel good. Feel better! Feel superior. Feel, as if you have reached sth in life You belong to the people who always need to have the last word. The smaller and more meaningless the individual, the more it behaves like this, best observed with small dogs.

All feelings and no substance! Can you even figure out what it is that Alex is responding to by this message? This is just a general, unspecified, childish tantrum, not a rational argument in sight! A real critic with real criticisms presents exactly what it is they are commenting on so that everybody can understand what they are addressing and why it is irrational. They wish to actually communicate their disagreements specifically for the purpose of educating and critiquing problems in particular.

Of course Alexander will be having a damnatio memoriae, celebrating the death of a guy like Crothers, because he is terrified of these criticisms which destroy his entire profession! This man has dedicated his entire life to studying irrational nonsense, is it any wonder that he has nothing more than childish insults to sling. People who can argue can tell us their SPECIFIC disagreements, and not just make general sweeping statements, like "Read a physics book" or "take a course in math!"

Other major critics of the Cult of Mathphyz receive the same empty, childish bullshit, such as Fatfist Fattie, who posted on the Rational Scientific Method group:

I have to give credit to some bright Philosophers who were able to refute my hubs. User Munyit presented my hubs on the Big Bang and Olbers Paradox to these seasoned Philosophers and asked for a refutation……and boy oh boy, he got one alright!

Banno: “And do you think this twaddle is defensible?”

Munyit: “I have to say, yes because I have not yet see any rational arguments that contradicted his arguments.”

Banno : “I think this tells me a great deal about you, and very little about rationality or the physics involved. Get a basic physics text and give it a look.”

Munyit : “Do you have any refutation on his arguments?”

Banno: “Yes - physics. Read some.”

Munyit : “Then, can you show me the refutations on his statements? Some links, etc. ? I want direct, rational arguments that contradicted his arguments.”

And here’s how Fat was refuted…..the punchline:

QuantumIguana: “I see no reason to take physics lessons from someone who calls himself "Fatfist".

And here’s the argument justifying the previous statement:

SophistiCat: “Would you take lessons from someone who calls himself "a stone"?”

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/no-such-thing-as-belief-63699-6.html

And here are the top voted comments on a Reddit post linking Fatfist's paper, http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/Big-Bang-The-Universe-is-NOT-Expanding











Even Wikipedia is guilty of this type of immature rhetoric, calling Bill Gaede's rational analysis of mathematical physics a personal "interpretation". This subtle suggestion that his analysis is an "interpretation" is just as ridiculous as the rest of these empty comments.



Here are a few comments of my own youtube videos which show the exact same empty childish nonsense:




What do each of foolish responses have in common? None of them address anything specifically about my arguments and each of them contain generalize sarcasm or emotional cries about my videos. Only childish fools leave comments like this on a video about Science. The problem is that most people who accept an idea without thinking it through FEAR any analysis which demonstrates the irrationality of their idea. They would rather attack the person who brings them rational arguments than accept that they acted foolishly when they blindly accepted an irrational idea.

This is what you can expect when you criticize a "well established" theory. If these people had any actual understanding of their own theories and the problems of the alternative theories we propose, then they would be able to clearly specify these problems. Unfortunately, they cannot because they are nothing more than blind followers.

Link them some of Fatfist's or Gaede's arguments and see for yourself.