I've invested a lot of time and thought into these interconnected fields of learning, both in the popular media, and in online lectures like the
ones given at the Royal Institute.
At on point in the 90's, I could walk across the parking lot at lunchtime and attend the free lunchtime lectures at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, while they were doing Fusion Power experiments.
Dazzling stuff...
When reduced to the level of my own feeble intellect, I've made some small progress in integrating them with my own thought processes, enough to satisfy myself that I'm actually following the path of knowledge. I was getting it, or so I thought.
Yet, deep in the corners, I was also getting an impression that what was fact may also be a network of agreement between the various actors about presenting a unified process for obtaining and sharing income, in the form of research grants, etc. In other words, it became easier to preach to the choir when the choir was sharing a similar set of vested interests. I do believe that's an aspect of what's going on in the science community; be it peer review, or tax write-offs, or institutional codes of conduct. But it may also be an accurate representation of scientific fact.
How to resolve the question?
Some of this cynicism was supported by some unscripted repartee embedded deep in some of the popular TV science programming. In essence, they were echoing my own mental reservations of "...and maybe the Moon is actually made of green cheese...".
Then we get to this presentation of, IMHO, Quantum Physics meets the Paranormal.
Brakes screeching.
I stopped watching at 1:04:00-ish.
Sorry folks, but I'm not investing three hours into "Well, maybe if I feel
this way, the scientific process will come out different than if I feel
that way...".
Puleez...!
Greg
