3 ms·

The problem isn't just that they explained it wrong, but that they tried to squash disbelief by pointing to a string theory book and saying "Look, it's in here!

by j2kun 10y ago

The problem isn't just that they explained it wrong, but that they tried to squash disbelief by pointing to a string theory book and saying "Look, it's in here! It must be true!" That second level of ignorance is a big part of what made me so angry.

ColinWright 10y ago
Pause ... The people in the Numberphile video may well have misjudged their audience, but I do not believe there is a "second level of ignorance" here, or even a first level of ignorance. At least, not about the mathematics. The people in the Numberphile video know full well all the underlying details of the mathematics, rigorous and informal. Like may others, I believe they badly misjudged the content and approach. I agree entirely with others that there are many people who have watched this and thrown their hands up and declared "Just proves I'm crap at maths and will never understand it." And that is unfortunate, which is why I personally believe it was a poor decision to make the video and explain it the way they did. But I don't believe it's fair to level an accusation of ignorance at them.
- CorvusCrypto 10y ago
  I must admit that I got this feeling of ignorance, or rather false logic, as well. "We know it's right because we see this kind of stuff occur in physics!" is I believe the quote in the video towards the end. However, it only shows up because someone decided that it was the best mathematical description of the behavior we witnessed. Kind of a circular validation. The maths are right because it shows up in physics, the physics are right because the maths checks out is what I got from it.
- j2kun 10y ago
  Both of the experts in the video are physicists, and in my experience physicists play fast and loose with mathematics. I think this is often because the mathematics that makes their arguments rigorous comes long after the sloppy methods are entrenched in the physics literature. In any case, I have talked to many physicists who have expressed to me their desire to better understand a topic like, say, differential geometry, but abhor the idea of actually reading a proof or studying a precise definition. In their words, "I only want an intuition for the subject." An understandable desire, but now my bar for believing a physicist when they make a mathematical claim is quite high. This video isn't helping them any. To be sure, there is a right way to do it, a simple practice that the men in the video could have employed to appease everyone: when you do something egregiously false, mention that strictly speaking you're not allowed to do it, and that you're actually sweeping a lot of complexity under the rug, and then continue anyway. This is the opposite of the blind appeal to authority in the video, and maintains their integrity.
CorvusCrypto 10y ago
yes this I have to agree with. It also provides a rather circular argument for existence.

by j2kun 10y ago

ColinWright 10y ago

Pause ... The people in the Numberphile video may well have misjudged their audience, but I do not believe there is a "second level of ignorance" here, or even a first level of ignorance. At least, not about the mathematics. The people in the Numberphile video know full well all the underlying details of the mathematics, rigorous and informal. Like may others, I believe they badly misjudged the content and approach. I agree entirely with others that there are many people who have watched this and thrown their hands up and declared "Just proves I'm crap at maths and will never understand it." And that is unfortunate, which is why I personally believe it was a poor decision to make the video and explain it the way they did. But I don't believe it's fair to level an accusation of ignorance at them.

CorvusCrypto 10y ago
I must admit that I got this feeling of ignorance, or rather false logic, as well. "We know it's right because we see this kind of stuff occur in physics!" is I believe the quote in the video towards the end. However, it only shows up because someone decided that it was the best mathematical description of the behavior we witnessed. Kind of a circular validation. The maths are right because it shows up in physics, the physics are right because the maths checks out is what I got from it.
j2kun 10y ago
Both of the experts in the video are physicists, and in my experience physicists play fast and loose with mathematics. I think this is often because the mathematics that makes their arguments rigorous comes long after the sloppy methods are entrenched in the physics literature. In any case, I have talked to many physicists who have expressed to me their desire to better understand a topic like, say, differential geometry, but abhor the idea of actually reading a proof or studying a precise definition. In their words, "I only want an intuition for the subject." An understandable desire, but now my bar for believing a physicist when they make a mathematical claim is quite high. This video isn't helping them any. To be sure, there is a right way to do it, a simple practice that the men in the video could have employed to appease everyone: when you do something egregiously false, mention that strictly speaking you're not allowed to do it, and that you're actually sweeping a lot of complexity under the rug, and then continue anyway. This is the opposite of the blind appeal to authority in the video, and maintains their integrity.

CorvusCrypto 10y ago

yes this I have to agree with. It also provides a rather circular argument for existence.