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 certainty 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? — fishfry
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. — fishfry
Do you at least take my point? — fishfry
The OP is about TPF being cluttered up with "Stupid Physics" posts. — EricH
There is nothing wrong in trying to simplify the message that science has established through complex analysis. — Gary Enfield
..the scientific zealots are not prepared to compromise even when the facts are presented to them. — Gary Enfield
That having watched a few dozen videos on youtube does not give you licence to re-write General Relativity. — Banno
The OP is about TPF being cluttered up with "Stupid Physics" posts. — EricH
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. — Banno
In my opinion, there's a danger in the very idea of "debate" -- as if we're qualified to judge whether there's even "two sides" to the story. I don't think, most of the time, we're even competent enough to make that judgement. — Xtrix
Again I refer to creationism — Xtrix
, 9/11 truthers, — Xtrix
holocaust denial, — Xtrix
anti-vaxxers, — Xtrix
climate change denial, — Xtrix
etc. — Xtrix
To even say "I've read both sides of this debate, and I align myself with x" is itself ridiculous. — Xtrix
Flat earthers are out there -- does that mean we should read their books and conclude that there's debate? — Xtrix
That being said, for those of us who aren't experts in a given domain, it's our responsibility to weed out who to listen to. This is a very tricky thing, and we're living in the midst of a real dilemma of this very thing. — Xtrix
For me, I go with the whatever consensus is reached among experts. — Xtrix
The vast majority of the time, I turn out to look like a genius because of that simplistic, 3-year-old strategy. — Xtrix
I'd say that's a good rule of thumb for anyone. — Xtrix
If one wants to learn more about a topic, listen to them. That's not to say dissent is not valuable -- it is. But within boundaries. — Xtrix
You're entitled to opine about anything you want. But since you asked for my opinion: I don't take either very seriously. Not just from you but from anyone. — Xtrix
If I know a little something about a topic, and someone has something to say that I find interesting on a philosophy forum, then I take it from there. 95% of what I read here is so uninteresting to me that it's not worth bothering with. I'm sure you feel the same way. — Xtrix
When it comes to science, especially mathematics and physics, I have less patience for people's armchair opinions. It's much easier to be a bullshitter in philosophy (and sociology, and literary criticism, etc) than it is in the hard sciences. In my opinion. And so yes, I do perhaps come down more harshly on that class of opinions. — Xtrix
I do. — Xtrix
the cost of climate policies is already falling most heavily on today’s poor. Subsidies for renewable energy have raised costs of heating and transport disproportionately for the poor. Subsidies for biofuels have raised food prices by diverting food into fuel, tipping millions into malnutrition and killing about 190,000 people a year. The refusal of many rich countries to fund aid for coal-fired electricity in Africa and Asia rather than renewable projects (and in passing I declare a financial interest in coal mining) leaves more than a billion people without access to electricity and contributes to 3.5 million deaths a year from indoor air pollution caused by cooking over open fires of wood and dung.
I wonder if pop science has something to do with this... so in presenting science without the equations, writers make it look like science does not need the equations. So folk think they are doing science when all they are doing is making shit up. — Banno
..the scientific zealots are not prepared to compromise even when the facts are presented to them.
— Gary Enfield
...like if someone were to propose a theory about the size of the universe without presenting the maths to back it up. — Banno
If you don't tell why, then I can't reply. — Banno
The consensus view almost always turns out to be wrong.
— fishfry
So often, that would seem to be the consensus.
It doesn't seem to help much. — Banno
I seem to recall seeing this vid a few weeks ago and it annoyed me. I don't remember the details and no need to re-trigger myself :-) — fishfry
↪fishfry If you don't tell why, then I can't reply. — Banno
It's just that something's being the consensus view is insufficient to show that that something is wrong. SO recognising that something is the consensus view is not all that useful. — Banno
It's just that something's being the consensus view is insufficient to show that that something is wrong. SO recognising that something is the consensus view is not all that useful. — Banno
But one doesn't have the time to get a Ph.D. in physics and a Ph.D in climate science and a Ph.D in epidemiology in order to have an opinion on these things. — fishfry
, 9/11 truthers,
— Xtrix
It always strikes me as a bad sign of our postmodern world that when we want to marginalize and dismiss someone's ideas, we accuse them of being interested in the truth. How quaint! Don't they know that narrative is all that matters?
The 9/11 commission report was a very shoddy piece of work. The commission's own co-chairs Hamilton and Keane said publicly that the commission was set up to fail and that the Bush administration blocked them at every turn. There are still many unanswered questions about the event.
One doesn't need to believe that Dick Cheney personally gave the order to want to find out what really happened. Don't you? The government's account is seriously incomplete and riddled with problems. — fishfry
So you're a 9/11 truther. Got it. I'll skip the rest of your post. Be well. — Xtrix
The two co-chairs of the Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, believe that the government established the Commission in a way that ensured that it would fail. In their book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission describing their experience serving, Hamilton listed a number of reasons for reaching this conclusion, including: the late establishment of the Commission and the very short deadline imposed on its work; the insufficient funds (3 million dollars), initially allocated for conducting such an extensive investigation (later the Commission requested additional funds but received only a fraction of the funds requested and the chairs still felt hamstrung); the many politicians who opposed the establishment of the Commission; the continuing resistance and opposition to the work of the Commission by many politicians, particularly those who did not wish to be blamed for any of what happened; the deception of the Commission by various key government agencies, including the Department of Defense, NORAD and the FAA; and, the denial of access by various agencies to documents and witnesses. "So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail.
One doesn't need to believe that Dick Cheney personally gave the order to want to find out what really happened. Don't you? The government's account is seriously incomplete and riddled with problems. — fishfry
Because pissed off Saudis can't decide to fly planes into buildings all by themselves? — frank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.