Many thanks to Dennis for linking, from the NYT site, an article I wrote one year ago to comment a crackpotty paper by an otherwise esteemed scientist.
The essay just appeared on the New York Times site is excellent, as always with Overbye, but it is also way more balanced than my rather vitriolic attack on the theory of backward causation and, in particular, the idea that one should use the Large Hadron Collider to test it by deciding to run or not to run based on the turn of a card.
I do not have much to say one year after the fact, but since I honestly believe my early piece is worth a read, I invite you there directly (or you may reach the piece from the NYT one). Happy reading.
Update: Peter Woit discusses the issue here, and he criticizes (not without reason, in hindsight) the possibilistic stand that Overbye has taken on the matter.
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Parton Distribution Functions For Run 2 At The LHC
- Non-Verbal Smell Test May Be Indicator Of Autism
- New GHOST Technology Leaps Out Of The Screen
- Genetic Testing In Kids - The Science Isn't Complicated But The Psychology Is
- AMVA4NewPhysics Logo
- True Weight Loss Is Rare
- Patients With Recurrent Depression Have Smaller Hippocampi
- "Okay, you gave yes to many questions (even the disagreement in 5, was not a real disagreement as..."
- "Hi, I currently finished my 3rd year of MSci in the UK, and am planning to start a PhD in Fall..."
- "If you stuck to the facts, that would be one thing, but you immediately in the beginning extrapolate..."
- "Thanks for the reference. It says things I am familiar about, but then there is the relationship..."
- "I don't mean to negate anyone's sense of free will. But having information about what works and..."
Books By Writers Here