3 ms·
Speaking as one who actually understands it, I don't know what makes you think you are qualified to claim otherwise. I don't understand a lot of high-level phy
by michael_dorfman 16y ago
Speaking as one who actually understands it, I don't know what makes you think you are qualified to claim otherwise.
I don't understand a lot of high-level physics, but that doesn't lead me to imagine that physicists just sit around bullshitting each other all day.
- three14 16y agoThat's spot on. I don't understand a lot of high-level physics or Continental Philosophy, but the same process that leads me to believe that the physicists aren't sitting around BSing all day leads me to believe that the philosophers are. (Which is to say, I read enough intro surface level articles that are supposed to give a hint of what you get into once you do begin to understand and talk to people about the same, and form an outsider's opinion. Same process, different results with the two fields.)
- btilly 16y agoI don't understand a lot of high-level physics, but that doesn't lead me to imagine that physicists just sit around bullshitting each other all day. I'm guessing you aren't familiar with string theory then. :-P /duck
- Retric 16y agoThere is an easy test to see if a subject has inherent meaning or not. Just submit a randomly constructed article to the related journal and see if they publish it. PS: Guess which side won?
- michael_dorfman 16y agoNot the side you think. Sokal punked a minor journal that was not particularly well known in the field. His book with Bricmont, attacking "postmodernism", on the other hand, was published by a major publisher, even though large swaths of it had been thoroughly debunked.
- Retric 16y agoNo, I was talking about a more personal connection. In the publish or perish environment it's easy to submit gibberish that sounds reasonable just to get another paper out there.