by gill1109 » Sun Oct 27, 2019 10:08 am
localyokel wrote:Richard, I find it odd that you have persisted so long and devoted so much energy to your debate with Joy. I am just a hobbyist, so I have difficulty comparing it to "normal" academic debate. I once took a deep dive into a preprint I found online by an academic mathematician and realized it was all wrong. I devised the most simple counterexample to one of his theorems in the paper I thought possible, and emailed it to him, in hopes of him making a major overhaul or giving up on what might be a doomed idea. All he did was add extra conditions to that theorem that basically just excluded my simple counterexample. It was still wrong, and I could have emailed him a more elaborate counterexample, but I decided to give up. I was disappointed in the exchange, in that I thought I had just made it harder for an actual journal referee to realize something was wrong. I usually don't care if/where a paper is published when I evaluate it, but I then became curious and looked at what journals his published papers were in, and they seemed "low tier". I am now asking the group: "Are there low tier math journals where you can expect to often find an entire paper has a fundamental flaw and it is all wrong?" As far as theoretical physics papers go: an alarming number appears to me to be metaphysics with a token equation or two, with trivial statements about them which look like there is some sort of derivation going on. As I said, I don't keep tabs on where/if anything is published, but I am guessing a lot of these are published. In which case, if I did believe Joy's idea was doomed, I would put it in the category of such metaphysical papers (even though it has a lot more equations), and move on.
Yes, I have also pondered long on the psychology of this case. Clearly, it did become an obsession with me. I'm an autistic mathematician type, I get these obsessions. Deeper still, I perceived a kind of affinity, brother-like, with Joy (obviously this was not mutual - it is in my own psyche) and I felt a strong need to help him by showing him where he had made some mistakes. Actually he had the same effect on several other people. They knew his maths was wrong, and obviously could not implement his math in computer programs (Bell's theorem is a true theorem in computer science!), so they implemented other people's detection loophole programs or made other ad hoc changes to Joy's maths so that the program gave the "right answer". Christian can't read or write computer programs and he likes to believe that his math got implemented by other people in their programs.
There is also a "higher" motive. How can highly intelligent people believe obviously impossible things? To mention a specific example, there is an editor at RSOS and at IEEE Access, who has written a brilliant tutorial and historical papers on Geometric Algebra, and is an invited speaker alongside the two Lazenby's and Leo Dorst at major international conferences on Geometric Algebra, who promotes Christian's work. Hence, obviously, does not check the mathematical details. I notice that most physicists and most philosophers of science don't check the maths. They are interested in the ideas and they may buy into the ideas or may argue about the ideas. But they often never bother to take any notice of the maths. I am the opposite. The ideas are beyond me, and I am not trained as a philosopher, nor as a physicist. My "academic credentials" (and my heart) lie in mathematics, even though I was never a great pure mathematician. I became a statistician and an applied probabilist of sorts by a series of accidents and lucky coincidences. I became a quite famous statistician through quite incredible coincidences, I am only too aware of the case (I suffer from imposter syndrome. Joy Christian on the other hand from the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon).
I want to understand the thinking of this kind of person because I want to find ways to explain Bell's childishly simple and totally impeccable logic. Logic and statistical insight. There is a statistical element in Bell's argument which physicists simply cannot grasp. I struggle to find ways to help the blind to see. I may only have one eye, but I do see more than those who are completely blind. Bell saw very, very clearly. Unfortunately, his training and the culture in which he operated did not allow him to express things with the clarity which certainly was needed.
Regarding your question to the group: "Are there low tier math journals where you can expect to often find an entire paper has a fundamental flaw and it is all wrong?" the answer is yes, and the so-called predatory journals are obviously exactly where this is common. Maybe one should distinguish between pure math journals and applied math journals. In pure mathematics, there is a myth of objective truth and of perfect rigour. In applied math, anything goes. What is interesting is that respectable publishing houses are setting up their own predatory journals. Springer, Elsevier, and IEEE have all done this. When your paper is rejected by one of their flagship journals they offer to fast track it in their lower-tier journals, provided of course you come up with the publication fee. Now Joy tells us that his publication fee in IEEE Access was waived. Obviously, he presumably does not have vast financial resources. But he does seem to have allies in high places. Yes, he does come across as extremely wise and well-informed, and he did, long ago, have strong academic credentials. People are drawn to him. He commands the undying support of very intelligent people, though of people who are not ever going to actually check his mathematics, and who almost certainly are not even capable of doing so.
It's a cargo cult. Christian is entirely sincere. He does learn from past experience. Civilised behaviour does pay off. So does increasing the complexity of the mathematical structures.
[quote="localyokel"]
Richard, I find it odd that you have persisted so long and devoted so much energy to your debate with Joy. I am just a hobbyist, so I have difficulty comparing it to "normal" academic debate. I once took a deep dive into a preprint I found online by an academic mathematician and realized it was all wrong. I devised the most simple counterexample to one of his theorems in the paper I thought possible, and emailed it to him, in hopes of him making a major overhaul or giving up on what might be a doomed idea. All he did was add extra conditions to that theorem that basically just excluded my simple counterexample. It was still wrong, and I could have emailed him a more elaborate counterexample, but I decided to give up. I was disappointed in the exchange, in that I thought I had just made it harder for an actual journal referee to realize something was wrong. I usually don't care if/where a paper is published when I evaluate it, but I then became curious and looked at what journals his published papers were in, and they seemed "low tier". I am now asking the group: "Are there low tier math journals where you can expect to often find an entire paper has a fundamental flaw and it is all wrong?" As far as theoretical physics papers go: an alarming number appears to me to be metaphysics with a token equation or two, with trivial statements about them which look like there is some sort of derivation going on. As I said, I don't keep tabs on where/if anything is published, but I am guessing a lot of these are published. In which case, if I did believe Joy's idea was doomed, I would put it in the category of such metaphysical papers (even though it has a lot more equations), and move on.[/quote]
Yes, I have also pondered long on the psychology of this case. Clearly, it did become an obsession with me. I'm an autistic mathematician type, I get these obsessions. Deeper still, I perceived a kind of affinity, brother-like, with Joy (obviously this was not mutual - it is in my own psyche) and I felt a strong need to help him by showing him where he had made some mistakes. Actually he had the same effect on several other people. They knew his maths was wrong, and obviously could not implement his math in computer programs (Bell's theorem is a true theorem in computer science!), so they implemented other people's detection loophole programs or made other ad hoc changes to Joy's maths so that the program gave the "right answer". Christian can't read or write computer programs and he likes to believe that his math got implemented by other people in their programs.
There is also a "higher" motive. How can highly intelligent people believe obviously impossible things? To mention a specific example, there is an editor at RSOS and at IEEE Access, who has written a brilliant tutorial and historical papers on Geometric Algebra, and is an invited speaker alongside the two Lazenby's and Leo Dorst at major international conferences on Geometric Algebra, who promotes Christian's work. Hence, obviously, does not check the mathematical details. I notice that most physicists and most philosophers of science don't check the maths. They are interested in the ideas and they may buy into the ideas or may argue about the ideas. But they often never bother to take any notice of the maths. I am the opposite. The ideas are beyond me, and I am not trained as a philosopher, nor as a physicist. My "academic credentials" (and my heart) lie in mathematics, even though I was never a great pure mathematician. I became a statistician and an applied probabilist of sorts by a series of accidents and lucky coincidences. I became a quite famous statistician through quite incredible coincidences, I am only too aware of the case (I suffer from imposter syndrome. Joy Christian on the other hand from the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon).
I want to understand the thinking of this kind of person because I want to find ways to explain Bell's childishly simple and totally impeccable logic. Logic and statistical insight. There is a statistical element in Bell's argument which physicists simply cannot grasp. I struggle to find ways to help the blind to see. I may only have one eye, but I do see more than those who are completely blind. Bell saw very, very clearly. Unfortunately, his training and the culture in which he operated did not allow him to express things with the clarity which certainly was needed.
Regarding your question to the group: "Are there low tier math journals where you can expect to often find an entire paper has a fundamental flaw and it is all wrong?" the answer is yes, and the so-called predatory journals are obviously exactly where this is common. Maybe one should distinguish between pure math journals and applied math journals. In pure mathematics, there is a myth of objective truth and of perfect rigour. In applied math, anything goes. What is interesting is that respectable publishing houses are setting up their own predatory journals. Springer, Elsevier, and IEEE have all done this. When your paper is rejected by one of their flagship journals they offer to fast track it in their lower-tier journals, provided of course you come up with the publication fee. Now Joy tells us that his publication fee in IEEE Access was waived. Obviously, he presumably does not have vast financial resources. But he does seem to have allies in high places. Yes, he does come across as extremely wise and well-informed, and he did, long ago, have strong academic credentials. People are drawn to him. He commands the undying support of very intelligent people, though of people who are not ever going to actually check his mathematics, and who almost certainly are not even capable of doing so.
It's a cargo cult. Christian is entirely sincere. He does learn from past experience. Civilised behaviour does pay off. So does increasing the complexity of the mathematical structures.