Interesting theory. I have a hard time imagining that physics programs are really so bad that they destroy people’s ability to think, but a professor I had last semester did tell me that philosophy of physics is full of refugees from bad physics programs. I initially would have thought Chad’s training would have helped him avoid the screw-up over Zeno’s paradox (doisng physics requires understanding math), but you’re right, it probably works the opposite way.

I wonder whether part of Chad’s problem might stem from his being a quantum physicist. Students of quantum mechanics are often actively discouraged from trying to make sense of the theory (e.g., of grappling seriously with the measurement problem), and are told to “shut up and calculate” — i.e., just get a pragmatic grasp of the theory, and don’t try to figure out what’s really going on.

You can see how this could devalue reason to the point where one might shrug his shoulders at an obvious contradiction.

A similar argument goes through about “political compatibility”.

1. By “compatibility,” he only refers to psychological compatibility, i.e., the ability for human beings to believe and feel comfortable about believing two things at the same time.
2. Science and religion are compatible in this sense.
3. Politically, this is the only sense of compatibility we should care about and take as actionable.

The third claim is his main thesis, and it’s a little less gross than the position you ascribe to him, namely,

3′. Rationally, this is the only sense of compatibility we should care about,

which masks an extreme relativism. Still, 3. is pretty transparently absurd in itself, and Orzel is basically cornered by his commenters into admitting that it entails science and astrology/homeopathy/alien abductions/etc. are also compatible in all the ways that politically matter.

I was certainly struck by that. ‘Zeno’s paradox therefore what the hell.’