5 ms·

I think you might be underestimating physicists, or over-estimating yourself... rest assured, modern physics is not a blind cargo-cult. The mainstream complex

I think you might be underestimating physicists, or over-estimating yourself... rest assured, modern physics is not a blind cargo-cult. The mainstream complex models are the simplest explanations consistent with empirical evidence, and gaps or weirdness in those models drives further experimentation. So far, reality has proven to be more complex than the trivially simple and clean abstractions found in software.

oldandtired 8y ago
I don't think I am underestimating physicists, simply because it is irrelevant if you are a physicist or not, you are a human first with all the foibles associated with that. Physicists are not immune to being pig-headed, obstinate, arrogant, self-righteous and just out and out plain wrong. These are attributes of all humans. The mainstream complex models are not the simplest explanations consistent with empirical evidence. There are various kinds of models that explain some phenomena better, but since they are not the consensus view they are not further investigated. that's the point I'm making. There is no funding for anything that is not part of the current suite of models. The reason for mentioning software was simply the mindset demonstrated by people to how they look at something. Reality is way more complex than any theory or model that we have so far come up with. Software is a dog's breakfast and that's my opinion after nearly 40 years being involved with it.
- ben_w 8y ago
  One of the advantages of peer review is using the natural human tendency to be “pig-headed, obstinate, arrogant, self-righteous” to poke each other’s work for flaws we cannot find in our own work.
- adrianN 8y ago
  Which models are thinking of?
- nunya213 8y ago
  "Various kinds of Models"... uh huh. QM is the most rigorously tested and most accurate scientific theory in the whole of human history and nothing even comes remotely close. You seem to think you have insights that the greatest minds in history have missed, then please by all means enlighten us plebs and take your Nobel Prize.

oldandtired 8y ago

I don't think I am underestimating physicists, simply because it is irrelevant if you are a physicist or not, you are a human first with all the foibles associated with that. Physicists are not immune to being pig-headed, obstinate, arrogant, self-righteous and just out and out plain wrong. These are attributes of all humans. The mainstream complex models are not the simplest explanations consistent with empirical evidence. There are various kinds of models that explain some phenomena better, but since they are not the consensus view they are not further investigated. that's the point I'm making. There is no funding for anything that is not part of the current suite of models. The reason for mentioning software was simply the mindset demonstrated by people to how they look at something. Reality is way more complex than any theory or model that we have so far come up with. Software is a dog's breakfast and that's my opinion after nearly 40 years being involved with it.

ben_w 8y ago
One of the advantages of peer review is using the natural human tendency to be “pig-headed, obstinate, arrogant, self-righteous” to poke each other’s work for flaws we cannot find in our own work.
adrianN 8y ago
Which models are thinking of?
nunya213 8y ago
"Various kinds of Models"... uh huh. QM is the most rigorously tested and most accurate scientific theory in the whole of human history and nothing even comes remotely close. You seem to think you have insights that the greatest minds in history have missed, then please by all means enlighten us plebs and take your Nobel Prize.