3 ms·

> Heat is usually conducted in a solid? I haven't heard it defined like that before. How have you heard it defined? >Don't see how it's not a purely hyperboli

> Heat is usually conducted in a solid? I haven't heard it defined like that before. How have you heard it defined? >Don't see how it's not a purely hyperbolic statement. Obviously. And I do believe it was meant to be taken as such. >Is that because quantum mechanics wasn't being taught 25 years ago I took my first quantum course about 20 years ago, and it didn't seem like it was something new. > or because they simply were not thinking deeply about that particular topic at the time? They were talking about an anecdote about shouting through a vacuum. You, yourself determined it was hyperbolic in nature, so I don't see how questioning the "depth" of their thinking on the subject makes any sense.

WhitneyLand 7y ago
>How have you heard [heat] defined [other than "mostly through a solid"]? Usually something like: Heat moves via matter or energy. For example, air, water, electromagnetism... It seems to add no value to arbitrarily say "mostly solids" rather than just say it moves via a medium. At worst it's misleading, especially when said directly by scientists, not simply written by pop-sci journalists. >>...[it's a purely hyperbolic statement] >Obviously. And I do believe it was meant to be taken as such. Hyperbole is part of language, but it's used more often by politicians. I consider it counterproductive for researchers to speak this way relating to their results. Others seem to agree: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/30/study-hyperbole-is-increasing-in-science/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/30/study-hyperbole-is-in... >>Is that because quantum mechanics wasn't being taught 25 years ago >[20 years ago it didn't seem like something new] Right, that was a rhetorical question. The high level concepts behind it haven't been new to PhD level physicists, even more than 25 years ago (Wheeler). >They [used] an anecdote...shouting through a vacuum...[you said] it was hyperbolic, [so how does it make sense to question the "depth" of their thinking] No, I said their present day quote was hyperbole, not the PhD defense. During the latter, I would not consider it professional for the panel to ask hyperbolic questions or for them to be answered that way. Not in the context of academic research, when potentially years of work and someone's future may be on the line. I get that they want press, attention, maybe investment. Indeed, hard work yielding good results deserve recognition. However in my opinion that kind of self promotion and exaggeration is better served from unattributed copy and PR initiatives, rather than by direct quotes from the lead researchers.

WhitneyLand 7y ago

>How have you heard [heat] defined [other than "mostly through a solid"]? Usually something like: Heat moves via matter or energy. For example, air, water, electromagnetism... It seems to add no value to arbitrarily say "mostly solids" rather than just say it moves via a medium. At worst it's misleading, especially when said directly by scientists, not simply written by pop-sci journalists. >>...[it's a purely hyperbolic statement] >Obviously. And I do believe it was meant to be taken as such. Hyperbole is part of language, but it's used more often by politicians. I consider it counterproductive for researchers to speak this way relating to their results. Others seem to agree: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/30/study-hyperbole-is-increasing-in-science/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/30/study-hyperbole-is-in... >>Is that because quantum mechanics wasn't being taught 25 years ago >[20 years ago it didn't seem like something new] Right, that was a rhetorical question. The high level concepts behind it haven't been new to PhD level physicists, even more than 25 years ago (Wheeler). >They [used] an anecdote...shouting through a vacuum...[you said] it was hyperbolic, [so how does it make sense to question the "depth" of their thinking] No, I said their present day quote was hyperbole, not the PhD defense. During the latter, I would not consider it professional for the panel to ask hyperbolic questions or for them to be answered that way. Not in the context of academic research, when potentially years of work and someone's future may be on the line. I get that they want press, attention, maybe investment. Indeed, hard work yielding good results deserve recognition. However in my opinion that kind of self promotion and exaggeration is better served from unattributed copy and PR initiatives, rather than by direct quotes from the lead researchers.