3 ms·

I know this is a bit late as a follow-up comment, I've been busy with other matters. You make an assumption that it is only "crackpots" who dispute the veracit

I know this is a bit late as a follow-up comment, I've been busy with other matters. You make an assumption that it is only "crackpots" who dispute the veracity of GR or QM. If someone does dispute this and provides some evidence to the non-veracity of GR and QM, what is the likelihood of them even getting published in any high profile journal? We have plenty of evidence across many fields where dissenting voices are shouted down and are called "crackpots" because they don't follow the consensus view. Some of these even get the Nobel Prize decades later for what they were condemned for at the time. All theories (and I have found none to the contrary) use some form of simplification and assumptions that remove complexity. This is in every field, especially in all fields related to science and technology. If we did not do so, the problems would become intractable. The wonderful thing is that even with these simplifications and assumptions we can get something that works and is useful. It just doesn't mean that those models and theories are correct or true. It just means that they work well enough for us to get things done.

lisper 9y ago
> If someone does dispute this and provides some evidence to the non-veracity of GR and QM, what is the likelihood of them even getting published in any high profile journal? 100%. They will win the Nobel prize too. The operative phrase here being provides evidence. > We have plenty of evidence across many fields where dissenting voices are shouted down and are called "crackpots" because they don't follow the consensus view. Some of these even get the Nobel Prize decades later for what they were condemned for at the time. Yeah? Like who? > All theories (and I have found none to the contrary) use some form of simplification and assumptions Yeah? Like what? You keep making this claim, and you keep not providing any evidence or examples. That is the mark of a crackpot.

lisper 9y ago

> If someone does dispute this and provides some evidence to the non-veracity of GR and QM, what is the likelihood of them even getting published in any high profile journal? 100%. They will win the Nobel prize too. The operative phrase here being provides evidence. > We have plenty of evidence across many fields where dissenting voices are shouted down and are called "crackpots" because they don't follow the consensus view. Some of these even get the Nobel Prize decades later for what they were condemned for at the time. Yeah? Like who? > All theories (and I have found none to the contrary) use some form of simplification and assumptions Yeah? Like what? You keep making this claim, and you keep not providing any evidence or examples. That is the mark of a crackpot.