5 ms·

But that's pretty much what Aaronson is implying. That physics can be cold, calculating, unbiased while the social sciences are the opposite. There is plenty o

• privong 11y ago
  > But that's pretty much what Aaronson is implying. That physics can be cold, calculating, unbiased while the social sciences are the opposite. Sure, and I agree that it's not necessarily true. I just wanted to point out that I was never claiming physics to be unbiased. :)
• Xcelerate 11y ago
  > just look at the way people defend their favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics as absolute truth. Yeah, but these people are rarely actual physicists. A physicist might discuss "interpretations of quantum mechanics" over lunch with a colleague in a fun, speculative way, but it makes little difference on the research they perform. More importantly, it doesn't affect the predictions that their research makes. This is not the case with the social sciences.
  • TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    It absolutely does affect the predictions research makes, because funding and PhD students are assigned to whatever models are most popular at the time. For a long time that was string theory, and a lot of departments considered other approaches to be non-optimal for career progression. Which sounds fine if you believe that heterodox but still valid science gets into the mainstream eventually - like (e.g.) the theory of continental drift did. But what if useful science falls through the cracks? What if we could have had a valid theory of quantum gravity by now, from a left-field approach that never had funding or PhD students to research it? How would anyone know?
  • typon 11y ago
    Are you sure you follow actual physicists? Have you ever heard Sean Carrol talk about how anyone who doesn't believe in the MW interpretation is pretty much stupid?
    • Xcelerate 11y ago
      I mean, yes, there are a few physicists who have turned into science popularizers, but they're no longer at the forefront of scientific research (e.g., Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene). I do quantum chemistry research. Do you recognize any of the names: Colbeck, Renner, Alavi, Booth, Kohn, Sherrill, Gill, or Pople? Colbeck and Renner are about as philosophical as you're going to get for scientists who currently perform actual research (Tegmark and Baez are in categories of their own).
      • typon 11y ago
        Do you put Sean Carroll in the same category as the other science popularizers? Also, isn't quantum chemistry too applied for there to be significant arguments about specific interpretations? I only know QC as it concerns DFT or QMC (I do semiconductor modeling)
        • Xcelerate 11y ago
          No, he still publishes quite a bit. But I'd say it's unusual to find someone who is both a researcher and a popularizer. > Also, isn't quantum chemistry too applied for there to be significant arguments about specific interpretations? I suppose that is mainly the point of my original post; the vast majority of researchers who utilize QM do so without regard to the philosophical aspects of the subject. Wouldn't you think Sean Carroll is an outlier in that sense?
          • typon 11y ago
            But then I could make the same point about the vast majority of humanities academics. Most work isnt paradigm shifting, it's just building on top of currently accepted theories. And that's my actual point. When it comes to rejecting or accepting new models, there is much dogma in physics as there is in sociology, because the underlying problem is human beings not the subject of study. Even Einstein dogmatically said "God does not play dice", rejecting QM based on his intuition about how the universe works rather than being cold and only looking at observation. Personally, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with dogma, it helps your research become an overdamped system otherwise you'd be wasting all your time following ultimately fruitless leads. The important thing is to use this inherent quality of humans to your advantage.