:grin: :up:

I can only quote from physicists or scientists who I think are reliable. And when such work is promulgated through popular works - which is perfectly fine it's how I learn about them - there is going to be a good bit simplification and I have to take a lot of it on trust, since I can't do the equations.

Having said that, I tend to like scientific literature that is a bit contrarian in the sense of looking for loopholes in popular accounts, because I think this is how I think science tends to progress.

Funnily enough, those who make the craziest claims about physics can be philosophers like Rosenberg. But saying that physics is trivial or easy, is a mistake.

It just so happens that the rest of reality is incredibly hard.

Hi Manuel

Anyone who is not working within a specialist field has to trust the findings being described by the experts, and rely on peer reviews to point out errors. That would be as true for Einstein on biochemistry, as it would be for you or me reading a text book.

Quite often, we can see a consensus amongst experts about the facts/basic evidence, but differences in interpretation about what those facts mean.

I don't mind the speculation, whether it comes from scientists or non-scientists, as long as
- it agrees with the evidence/facts; is logical; and doesn't have evidence to contradict it.

Most scientific principles (if not all) come down to quite understandable factors for the layman, and I think that scientists should explain their findings to their colleagues as well as the ordinary person in simple language, so long as it doesn't distort the true principles of their findings.

Assuming that this happens correctly, and the principles behind different interpretations are clear, it is open to anyone to comment on validity, so long as their criticism has a logical foundation.

It is also open to people with knowledge to explain why some interpretations are incorrect. But when they can't explain why something is incorrect, we rarely see an acknowledgement that two or more valid interpretations exist, and we need more evidence to determine which is correct.
No we tend to find that the desire to preserve previous dogma leads to bizarre explanation with no evidence to justify them, accompanied by attempts to smear the counter-view rather than argue against it.

Even ordinary people have a right to point out discrepancies - and when they do, it is up to scientists to investigate and resolve the dilemma honestly instead of trying to smear the commentators as cranks. If there is a deficiency in the scientific case that is a problem for scientists not the commentator.

I mean sure. But it would be however a bit annoying to have many random laypeople saying "this is wrong", when the person in question has years of experience on a single topic.

Nevertheless, your point is valid and I agree with the layman explanation standard. Another issue altogether is if people use professional credentials or knowledge in a field as evidence for something which is crazy.

I have in mind Dennett and his denying phenomenal consciousness. He knows brain sciences better than me, I'm sure. But his conclusions aren't plausible.

I have in mind Dennett and his denying phenomenal consciousness. — Manuel

Do not mention the cursed one. The Starter of Interminable Threads. The insatiable devourer of time.

But I would more so say that when Dennett says “consciousness ain’t real” he is denying the “phenomenal” bit, not the “consciousness” bit. He is basically denying a dualistic approach. Consciousness is real and all, but no more than a physical process. The “feeling of red” IS a specific neurological state, and no more than that. It’s not something “produced by” a certain neurological state no it IS the neurological state.

That’s what he seems to be saying to me at least.

Any explanations? — Banno

I've been thinking about this more and I wanted to follow up on this more. I wrote:

Explanation #1 - Poor enforcement of the pseudo-science rules. — T Clark

First - a question for @fdrake and @StreetlightX, two moderators who have a strong knowledge of and interest in science. It seems to me that moderators are less likely to crack down on questionable science than in the past. Do you think that's true? Has there been a change in moderation policy? Maybe it's just one of those cyclic things.

Second - there used to be several pugnacious science types who tended to jump on science baloney. I'm thinking in particular of Timeline and Apokrisis, but there were others. TL exploded and Apo sleeps most of the time now.

I don't really mind our pseudoscientific members and their writing. It's fun for me to feel all superior. On the other hand, allowing bad science a place to speak is not this forum's job. It's here to provide bad philosophy a place to speak. They come here because they get smacked down and banned on science forums. You actually have to know something real to write there.

It's a bit of a fine line. Speaking only for myself, I tend to let those threads fly - but not all the time - because I think they offer opportunity for public correction by those who do know what they are talking about. I almost want to say - when there are particularly egregious mistakes, I would almost prefer to keep those threads around because they can be so easily dispatched, as it were, by someone who might in fact know what they are talking about. It becomes a learning opportunity.

That all said, can we name names (threads?). Like, eyeballing it - there's a weird one about entropy which I probably would have gotten rid of had I caught it earlier (report things people!), the other one about physics equations which went exactly as planned, as it were (precisely by those who know their physics), and... well.. am I missing something?

am I missing something? — StreetlightX

No, I don't think so. @Banno raised the question and it set me thinking. I endorse a policy of toleration until it becomes intolerable. I think you're right, though - we should call out pseudoscience when we see it. Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't.

Thanks.

But I would more so say that when Dennett says “consciousness ain’t real” he is denying the “phenomenal” bit, not the “consciousness” bit. He is basically denying a dualistic approach. Consciousness is real and all, but no more than a physical process. The “feeling of red” IS a specific neurological state, and no more than that. It’s not something “produced by” a certain neurological state no it IS the neurological state.

That’s what he seems to be saying to me at least. — khaled

Despite generally being able to come up with wonderful examples, it's not always too clear what he's saying, at least to me. What you interpret him to say may be correct.

He thinks he's getting rid of dualism. The thing about being no more than a physical process is a bit confusing. What's "more" than a physical process? Everything is physical or the stuff of nature.

But yeah, his thought arouses a lot of debate.

It's a good question to consider if "good science" can lead to bad or misleading thinking. :chin:

But that's for another thread.

I think this is a small example of a larger problem - the inability to accept reality.

Reality deniers come in many shapes & sizes: Vaccines, the Holocaust, Flat Earth, climate change, etc.

I wish I knew what causes this. I have close relatives & friends who deny at least one (and typically many) aspects of reality. My amateur psychologist analysis is that this is partly driven by fear. The way they view themselves and how they fit into the world is being challenged. And they are afraid of that change.

And the thing is - they are not stupid people. You can have intelligent conversations with them on any number of issues, you can share laughter & tears, etc.

And then - whoo-hoo . . . . . . . ! They dive off into outer space somewhere.

Now back to your question. The "bad physics people" phenomena is a relatively (pun intended) minor example compared to flat earth folk. And in this particular case case I share the sentiments of other responders that there is more than a touch of Dunning-Kruger mixed in . . .

I don't really mind our pseudoscientific members and their writing. It's fun for me to feel all superior. On the other hand, allowing bad science a place to speak is not this forum's job. It's here to provide bad philosophy a place to speak. They come here because they get smacked down and banned on science forums. You actually have to know something real to write there. — T Clark

I tend to delete low effort obviously wrong ones for being low effort. I tend to leave decently written obviously wrong ones up. To my reckoning, we're not a space that formally punishes being factually wrong - it's the perniciousness of the falsehood that matters.

I will delete commonly known pseudoscience inspired topics without much mercy, though. Since they're about harmful disinformation.

I think this is a small example of a larger problem - the inability to accept reality.

Reality deniers come in many shapes & sizes: Vaccines, the Holocaust, Flat Earth, climate change, etc.

I wish I knew what causes this. I have close relatives & friends who deny at least one (and typically many) aspects of reality. My amateur psychologist analysis is that this is partly driven by fear. The way they view themselves and how they fit into the world is being challenged. And they are afraid of that change.

And the thing is - they are not stupid people. You can have intelligent conversations with them on any number of issues, you can share laughter & tears, etc. — EricH

Yes, "bad physics" threads are necessary to bring attention to the fact that even highly intelligent people, like physicists, sometimes are amongst those who cannot accept reality.

This thread is an example of why science has become so dangerous. Take heed.

If the Chinese want to cut me out of a conversation, all they have to do is speak Chinese. If physicists want to cut me out of a conversation, all they have to do is speak physics. Don't they have a panoply of formulaic gobblydegook they toss up on a chalk board that only they can read and understand? In fact, when I first arrived here, I think I got notice that this forum, unlike many, allowed for the use of such characters. Seems pretty simple to me.

But when they wander on down from the heights to mingle with us great unwashed, and start using *our* English, they just entered my bailiwick. They can then expect some participation.

A little off topic, but since I am not a musician, mathematician, physicist, or logician, maybe you folks can clear something up for me: I think I once heard or read that all logic could be reduced to formula. The idea I got was that logical argument, fallacies, and such was really just journeyman stuff, and the continued pursuit of logic would bring one to formulas. Is that true?

I also saw a recent post here that asked about physics and math, as if someone might think they are different. I always viewed physics as just another form of advanced math, like calculus and whatnot. Am I wrong on that?

I've heard music is another language. I certainly can't read it (yet, it's on my to do list). But two people from different countries that don't speak the same "regular" language can both get the same song out of a sheet of music. Correct?

Anyway, I really don't want to be a nuisance. But that doesn't stop my head from spinning with intuition and ideas. Every once in a while, I'll throw something on the wall and see if it sticks. It's pretty easy to shut me down with numbers and formulas. No need to berate me, just X%$# y *@! / 56! = 5 = $ and I'm gone.

Thanks.

The tedious tide of theological threads appear to have been replaced by a population of piss-poor physics posts. — Banno

You mean here, or on the Internet in general? Personally I'm much more interested in bad physics than in bad theology. And in bad math most of all. It's the Internet, not the Royal Society. Then again when Newton was president of the Royal Society he ordered the burning of the the last surviving portrait of his great rival Robert Hooke. If these guys showed up on the Internet today they'd flame with the best.

I always viewed physics as just another form of advanced math, like calculus and whatnot. Am I wrong on that? — James Riley

Yes you are wrong. Math is to physics as hammers and nails and wood and bricks are to construction. Tools and materials of the trade, essential to the enterprise, but not the enterprise itself.

In logic, a statement need only be logically correct. "If A implies B and A is true, then B is true." This is a logical truth because it's a valid statement true under any conceivable assignment of meanings to A and B.

In math, a statement needs to be logically valid AND mathematically valid to be true. "If 2 + 2 = 5 then I am the Pope." That is a mathematical truth. Note that it's NOT a logical truth, because it depends on the meaning of "2 + 2 = 5". We need to know that mathematically, 2 + 2 = 5 is false. At that point, the implication becomes true; but in the real world, meaningless.

In physics, a statement must be experimentally true about the world, not just mathematically correct. Mathematical models that are not physically confirmed (string theory, eternal inflation, etc.) are labeled as speculative. They are not physical truths even if they are mathematically correct.

There are many such speculative theories floating around in physics these days. In fact that's one of the great criticisms of contemporary physics. "The Trouble With Physics" by Smolin, "Lost in Math" by Hossenfelder, etc. The complaint is that since the physicists have been stuck for decades, they're now reduced to churning out one speculative mathematically correct but physically unverifiable theory after another; while publicly making ever more grandiose claims of knowing how the world works, ie "A Universe from Nothing" by Krauss.

See how easy that was? All you have to do is throw me a bone that I actually have to chew on. Now I have to go chew on that and leave you alone. :nerd: :grin:

Any explanations? — Banno

Yes: understanding physics takes work. Hard work.

Yes: understanding physics takes work. Hard work. — Xtrix

What explains the recent (past several decades) of bad physics from the hard-working professional physicists?

What explains the recent (past several decades) of bad physics from the hard-working professional physicists? — fishfry

I leave that to physicists to decide. To presume I have any idea that its "bad physics" is delusional. Ditto for you (unless you're a physicist, of course).

To presume I have any idea that its "bad physics" is delusional. Ditto for you — Xtrix

I can't speak for you. But I'm entitled to (and do in fact have) an informed opinion on the matter. I can refer you to some recent books by physicists on the subject. And since the work of modern physics is primarily supported by government grants and I'm a taxpayer, I most definitely have say.

You may remember the Superconducting Super Collider, a massive particle accelerator in Texas that would have been far more powerful than the current Large Hadron Collider, but killed by Bill Clinton in 1993 for budgetary reasons. As the bureaucrats said to the astronauts in the film, The Right Stuff, "What makes the rockets go up? Funding. No bucks, no Buck Rogers."

Review of Sabine Hossenfelder's book:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/lost-in-math-review-the-beauty-myth-1529703982

Lee Smolin's book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics

Peter Woit's article. He has a book too.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-string-theory-is-still-not-even-wrong/

Also see these vids by Sabine Hossenfelder. She's terrific on explaining physics and also on explaining these methodological and philosophical issues with contemporary physics that I'm referring to.

https://youtu.be/9qqEU1Q-gYE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwTkBkb94Rc

Note that all these books and articles, and others like them, are intended for mainstream audiences. So these authors are physicists who understand the physics; and who also believe that it IS the business of the public to make informed judgments on the validity of the work currently being done by the physicists.

We are a long long way from when Isaac Newton returned home during the London plague to invent calculus, develop his theory of optics, and conceive of the law of universal gravitation. He did all that with paper and quill pen. Today, science is a massive public works project, and its funding is not all that different from a vote on a referendum to float a bond to repair a highway. It's all public money, and quite a lot of it.

I can't speak for you. But I'm entitled to (and do in fact have) an informed opinion on the matter. I can refer you to some recent books by physicists on the subject. And since the work of modern physics is primarily supported by government grants and I'm a taxpayer, I most definitely have say. — fishfry

Well we can't all recognize our delusions. If you're not a physicist, I'm not interested in your amateur opinion -- no matter how many pop science books you read.

Note that all these books and articles, and others like them, are intended for mainstream audiences. — fishfry

Yes, and I'm sure there are plenty of responses to "The Trouble With Physics" by physicists (in fact, I'm certain of it). Debate within the sciences are wonderful. But, much like the creationists, to pretend we know something we don't simply because a few outliers publish books -- ditto with the climate change "debate" -- is absurd.

You're welcome to your delusions.

You're welcome to your delusions. — Xtrix

Did I say something that bothered you? By way of conversation, I'm wondering why you think the public is entitled to a voice in which highways to build, which public projects to fund, but not which scientific projects to fund? Or am I misconstruing your concerns? I thought you might find my links of interest to your own knowledge. After all it's true that we are not physicists, but you seem to be saying that we shouldn't even bother to read popular accounts of the work of physicists.

But then why have a philosophy forum? Are we armchair philosophers allowed to have opinions, informed or not, on the philosophical issues of the day? After all philosophers work a lot cheaper than physicists. Are we allowed to opine on Wittgenstein but not Witten? Where do you draw the line?

Did I say something that bothered you? By way of conversation, I'm wondering why you think the public is entitled to a voice in which highways to build, which public projects to fund, but not which scientific projects to fund? — fishfry

They do have a say in that -- a limited one.

That has nothing to do with whether physics has been "bad" for the last few decades. The OP isn't about funding science.

These two interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6rfpQXzXu0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTx98PUW6lE

...Sabine Hossenfelder... — fishfry

Nice.

That has nothing to do with whether physics has been "bad" for the last few decades. The OP isn't about funding science. — Xtrix

Ok. Suppose I phrased it somewhat differently:

I've been reading some books and articles, and watching some videos, in which professional physicists criticize the current practices of some areas of physics on the grounds that they have substituted abstract math for experimental contact with the world. I do tend to agree with this point of view; but of course the physicists being so criticized would disagree, and I lack the professional competence to have an authoritative opinion on the matter.

That said, I am sharing these links with the forum because they are interesting and educational in and of themselves, whether you agree or disagree with their point of view.


Would that be better?

I still would like to know, in your opinion, why I'm entitled to opinions about the work of some professionals but not others. I gave the examples of Wittgenstein, a philosopher that a lot of people around here have a lot of opinions about; and Ed Witten, a superstar mathematical physicist who, interestingly, is the only working physicist to have won math's greatest prize, the Fields medal.

It seems to me, if I'm reading you correctly, that I am entitled to opine (ignorantly as it happens in this instance) on Wittgy; but not on Witten. I wonder if you can help me understand the distinction.

Mentioning Ed Witten reminded me of my other favorite Witten: Jason Witten, the former longtime superstar tight end for the Dallas Cowboys, a professional football team.

Now Jason Witten is an incredibly skilled athlete, for many years at the absolute top of his craft in a difficult and dangerous activity that fewer than 1700 human beings are qualified to pursue at that level in any given year. To be a superstar of his longevity and accomplishments puts him in the top 0.000000014286 or so of humanity.

As it happens, many partisans of the Dallas Cowboys, as well as their many more passionate haters, as well as fans of professional football everywhere, have strong opinions about the performance of Mr. Witten, despite the fact that most of these opinionated amateurs never do anything more physically demanding than get up off the couch to fetch another beer.

By your logic, sports fans have no right to opine on the play of these gifted athletes who devote their entire lives from the time they're 8 years old to getting better at their craft.

And yet, Mr. Witten and all other professional athletes, as well as the league itself, absolutely want beer-swilling couch potatoes to have strong opinions on the play of their athletes. Why? Because the opinionated couch potatoes watch the ads on tv and buy the merchandise sold by the league. We are talking about an almost fifty billion dollar industry in global merchandise sales (across all sports), plus the massive television and streaming revenue from the ads.

Without sports fans not only being allowed, but being mightily encouraged, to have strong opinions on the skill of professional athletes, there could be no professional athletes! At least none making the kind of money they make now.

What do you make of this? If pro physicists sold jerseys would it be okay to cheer your favorites and boo your rivals?

I am asking you: Given a professional, when am I allowed or not allowed to hold an opinion on their work, given that I can have no real understanding of what it is they do?

Wittgenstein yes, Ed Witten no, Jason Witten yes?

Do you at least take my point? Your own position doesn't seem consistent. You haven't given me a standard that I can apply.

These two interesting. — tim wood

Thanks!

Nice. — Banno

I'm a big fan of hers.

Note that all these books and articles, and others like them, are intended for mainstream audiences. So these authors are physicists who understand the physics; and who also believe that it IS the business of the public to make informed judgments on the validity of the work currently being done by the physicists. — fishfry

Certainly. if someone wants to spend a billion dollars to create a perpetual motion machine or to prove once and for all that the earth is flat, then the public can reasonably say that this is a waste of money. But this line of discussion is not what the OP is talking about. The OP is about TPF being cluttered up with "Stupid Physics" posts.

I just watched the one n infinity in physics... it might help those who are participating in Can it be that some physicists believe in the actual infinite?... a thread that shows the "bad" is not limited to physics, but extends to mathematics.