As a whistle-blower and interdisciplinary scientist who appreciates the strength of philosophical arguments (read: logic!), I receive idiotic rejections declining to publish my work, perusing laughably silly justifications all the time. This is understandable in today’s throughout PC, eggshell walking careerist academia and publish-or-perish corrupted scientific community. But there are different degrees of how sure-of-themselves proud the rejections are for example. Physicists usually at least pretend to argue something, no matter it is clear that the editor or reviewers have not read beyond the abstract and reference list in order to find out whether they were cited.


Aiming to perhaps join a philosophy department because mere science bores me stiff, it is sad to be reminded that academic philosophers really do not know what they talk about, especially not those who pretend to talk science. The following rejection of the article “Richard Feynman as Philosopher: In Defense of the Value of Philosophy in Physics” is the crassest, most disrespecting as well as idiotic I have ever received; the justification given is all of 11 words that blow anybody's mind who ever even just read an introduction to Einstein relativity!


Dear prof.Sascha Vongehr

I have received the decision from the Editor on your manuscript, EPSA-D-15-00101 "Richard Feynman as Philosopher: In Defense of the Value of Philosophy in Physics"

With regret, I must inform you that the Editor has decided that your manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in EUROPEAN JOURNAL FOR PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE.

Below, please find the comments for your perusal.

I would like to thank you very much for forwarding your manuscript to us for consideration and wish you every success in finding an alternative place of publication.

With kind regards,
Journals Editorial Office

dear author
interpreting Einstein's relativity as a form of relativism is deeply wrong


Dear Editor*

  , allow me to answer somewhat more eloquently than you seem to be able to:

To state in such an abbreviated naïve way that Einstein’s theory of relativity is not interpretable as relativism, although its very start is based on the relativity of synchronicity, is already somewhat idiotic; this holds independent of the cutting edge of physics today telling us about the deep relations between Einstein and Everett relativity, which is of course beyond your intellectual horizon.


To tell this to an author who not only has published a lot on this very subject of whether Einstein relativity is fundamentally a relativism or rather not, but to one who moreover has been suppressed for openly discussing and partially defending that very viewpoint of that Einstein’s relativity is, especially in its generalized form, *not* necessarily fundamentally a relativism, that is already pretty far into unacceptable idiot territory for anybody who claims being knowledgeable about not only physics but also philosophy.


However, for an editor of a journal about philosophy of science to write such against the very manuscript that defends postmodern perspectivism as it manifests itself now at the cutting edge of modern physics, namely the description relativism (dual descriptions, duality transformations between seemingly mutually exclusive descriptions) about that both types of description can be dual, describing the exact same phenomena, those descriptions that are apparently relativisms as well as those that are seemingly absolutely not, now that is just such utter stupidity as is only encountered in philosophy departments.


Since the manuscript is defending the value of proper philosophy in physics, thank you very much for reminding us all to also always stress that scientists can sadly not find proper philosophy that could be of any worth to them published by today’s academic “philosophers”. This is of course what Feynman, who was far more of a proper philosopher than any of today’s “philosophers” of science, already said, as is discussed in the paper.


Another supposed “philosopher of science”, equally typically full of brown semi solids


(* The editor did not have the guts to identify himself, but it is likely one of two (write them here who always reject my work and who are known as supposed leading experts on relativity theory since they publish a huge bunch of nonsense about supposedly important questions like “Einstein’s Hole argument” (which Albert Einstein himself already later said is no problem at all !), while missing the relevance to Einstein-Everett-relativity of what is happening at the cutting edge of science! Oh poor world, why are ye so ridiculous?)