3 ms·
Although it is a bit of a jab, I wouldn't call it an ad hominem. And this is no way an admission of pseudoscience. She is simply saying that in physics it's (u
by Analog24 10y ago
Although it is a bit of a jab, I wouldn't call it an ad hominem.
And this is no way an admission of pseudoscience. She is simply saying that in physics it's (usually) easy to tell when someone doesn't know what they're talking about. Mainly because the amount of prerequisite material needed to understand and contribute to cutting edge physics is likely quite a bit more than what's required for sociology and other social sciences. This is simply because physics is a much older subject with a lot more history, this isn't meant as an attack on social sciences.
The statement you quoted is not even close to an admission of pseudoscience in physics.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoIt is exactly an ad hominem. The author literally states that the demarcation function in physics is dependent on their opinion of the person making the claim.
- Analog24 10y ago>...demarcation function... You're grasping at straws here. This is a blog post, not a publication in a peer reviewed journal. Furthermore, it is fairly easy for a physicist to form a reasonable "opinion" about someones grasp of theoretical physics. This "demarcation function" does not extend to any other aspects of ones opinions regardless of how much you want to force this meaning on her words.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoI don't see what straws I could possibly be grasping; it is literally what the blog post says.
- Analog24 10y agoThat's "literally" just how you chose to interpret it. But that's OK as long as it supports your overarching generalizations about the entire field of physics based on a blog post.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoCould you provide an alternative interpretation of those sentences?