ENTAUS

I’m beginning to wonder whether Prof. Loeb is actually aware of the curious details of the history of actual science—as opposed to the hagiographical stories we like to congratulate science with as we daydream about what science must or ought to be like. Whenever scientists wax reflexive or “philosophical”, we really should start to get the jitters—especially in today’s post-1960s world of Feynmanian “shut up and calculate”, where (from my personal experience) most scientists, even the savants, have a very unsubtle (and idealistic) grasp of real history of science, let alone the philosophy that both guides and underwrites it. So I want to talk about “Loebism”. I am not sure that I can provide a general account of Loebism yet, but I can begin to discern the outlines of it. And it’s not particularly promising. Not for UAP study, and not for science, either. (But maybe that’s just me being cranky yet again…) Let’s begin with the latest outpourings from his ever-active “Medium” blo