More remnants of conscience in the era of Postscientism:

http://school.maths.uwa.edu.au/~mike/Trouble.doc
Mike Alder: "It is easy to see the consequences of the takeover by the
bureaucrats. Bureaucrats favour uniformity, it simplifies their lives.
They want rules to follow. They prefer the dead to the living. They
have taken over religions, the universities and now they are taking
over Science. And they are killing it in the process. The forms and
rituals remain, but the spirit is dead. The cold frozen corpse is so
much more appealing to the bureaucratic mind-set than the living
spirit of the quest for insight. Bureaucracies put a premium on the
old being in charge, which puts a stop to innovation. Something
perhaps will remain, but it will no longer attract the best minds.
This, essentially, is the Smolin position. He gives details and
examples of the death of Physics, although he, being American, is
optimistic that it can be reversed. I am not. (...) Developing ideas
and applying them is done by a certain kind of temperament in a
certain kind of setting, one where there is a good deal of personal
freedom and a willingness to take risks. No doubt we still have the
people. But the setting is gone and will not come back. Science is a
product of the renaissance and an entrepreneurial spirit. It will not
survive the triumph of bureacracy. Despite having the infrastructure,
China never developed Science. And soon the West won't have it
either."

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServ...reg_ls_physics
"For two centuries after Isaac Newton, the science of physics served
as the leading example of the power of the human mind. Its basic
content and method, and the life-saving technology that emerged from
it, sent a message that resounded throughout the western world: man
can live and prosper by the guidance of reason. However, for the past
century, theoretical physicists have been sending a different message.
They have rejected causality in favor of chance, logic in favor of
contradictions, and reality in favor of fantasy."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20.../22/schools.g2
"But instead of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report
showed a dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at
school. The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the
past 15 years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over
the next few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics
teachers and a lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of
physics in state schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to
only those students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain
was the home of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and
Brits made world-class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum
physics and electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now
facing extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as
pandas, so who cares if we disappear?"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ingdahl2.html
"But there has been a marked global decrease of students willing to
study physics, and funding has decreased accordingly. Not only that,
the best students are not heading for studies in physics, finding
other fields more appealing, and science teachers to schools are
getting scarcer in supply. In fact, warning voices are being heard
about the spread of a "scientific illiteracy" where many living in
technologically advanced societies lack the knowledge and the ability
for critical thinking in order to function in their daily
environment."

http://www.worldscibooks.com/chemist...69_preface.pdf
"I believe that the time is ripe to acknowledge that the term entropy,
as originally coined by Clausius, is an unfortunate choice. Moreover,
it is also a misleading term both in its meaning in ancient and in
contemporary Greek. On this matter, I cannot do any better than Leon
Cooper (1968). Cooper cites the original passage from Clausius: in
choosing the word "Entropy," Clausius wrote: "I prefer going to the
ancient languages for the names of important scientific quantities, so
that they mean the same thing in all living tongues. I propose,
accordingly, to call S the entropy of a body, after the Greek word
"transformation." I have designedly coined the word entropy to be
similar to energy, for these two quantities are so analogous in their
physical significance, that an analogy of denominations seems to be
helpful." Right after quoting Clausius' explanation on his reasons for
the choice of the word "Entropy," Cooper commented: "By doing this,
rather than extracting a name from the body of the current language
(say: lost heat), he succeeded in coining a word that meant the same
thing to everybody: nothing." I fully agree with Cooper's comment;
however, I have two additional comments, and contrary to Cooper, I
venture into taking the inevitable conclusion: First, I agree that
"entropy means the same thing to everybody: nothing." But more than
that, entropy is also a misleading term...."
Arieh Ben-Naim
Department of Physical Chemistry
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Jerusalem, Israel

Jean-Pierre Maury reveals one of the fundamental secrets of
Postscientism: In his notes written between 1824 and 1832 Sadi Carnot
discovered the first law of thermodynamics and rejected the second:

Jean-Pierre Maury, "Carnot et la machine à vapeur", Presses
Universitaires de France, 1986:
p. 108: "Et Carnot, après 1824? Est-il découragé par cet échec?
Pourquoi ne publie-t-il pas autre chose? Bien sûr, il va mourir très
tôt (en 1832). Mais tout de même, en huit ans....C'est qu'au début de
ces huit ans, il lui est arrivé une chose terrible, bien plus terrible
que l'échec des Réflexions; il a realisé que le calorique ne se
conservait pas - et pour lui, cela signifiait forcément que la base
même des Réflexions était fausse..."
p. 109: [Sadi Carnot écrit entre 1824 et 1832 : ] "La chaleur n'est
autre chose que la puissance motrice ou plutôt que le mouvement qui a
changé de forme. C'est un mouvement dans les particules des corps,
partout où il y a destruction de puissance motrice il y a en même
temps production de chaleur en quantité précisément proportionnelle à
la quantité de P.M. détruite. Réciproquement, partout où il y a
destruction de chaleur, il y a producion de P.M."

Pentcho Valev