4 ms·
Such a fascinating take. When I was young I used to think that scientists and the scientific process were perfectly objective. As you get older you learn that h
by rjyoungling 7y ago
Such a fascinating take. When I was young I used to think that scientists and the scientific process were perfectly objective. As you get older you learn that human beings have human being problems. Those don't magically disappear once you become a scientist.
You see this even in highly objective fields such as physics, where much progress comes from the previous generation simply dying.
Our own ego's, as well as the factors mentioned in the article, create problems much more than you might expect when you're young and naive.
- dekhn 7y agoIs physics truly objective? I see people still arguing about quantum mechanics, and it looks like the safest conclusion is that we don't actually live in a straightforward, temporally causal world (prediction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed-choice_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed-choice_exp..., experimental support: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser) Nobody's making progress because people are dying (we still see many vestiges of the Cophenhagen interpretation!)
- rjyoungling 7y agoYeah, I see your POV. Think it depends where you're coming from. Physics is objective if by objective you mean we can predict how the wavefunction will evolve according to the Schrodinger equation. (Depending on who you ask) it might be less objective if you ask: ''But what's REALLY going on?'' Then you start getting into the interpretations of qm and different scientists will have different views. I think it's at least likely that we'll be able to answer that question in a few decades (or at least move the ball forward). The view of Everettians, for example, is falsifiable and there are experiments going on as we speak trying to achieve that.