5 ms·
> I strongly disagree that the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years. I think, we are getting a peak at the politics of the practice of scie
by mfer 7y ago
> I strongly disagree that the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years.
I think, we are getting a peak at the politics of the practice of science when you look at the article and comments, like this ones parent.
A bunch of this is about the unobserved. The theoretical rather than then experimentally observed (think scientific method).
Whose theories get the funding to be looked into? Whose ideas are published and talked about in the popular places?
A post of Sabine's talked about how she thinks the crisis in physics isn't about physics [1].
Is it instead about the politics of the money and popularity? Is it about the psychology of being wrong? I mean, different physicists contradict each other and the truth isn't what's popular it is what's observed, right? If people contradict each other they can't all be right.
What's most interesting, to me, is how this isn't about what's been observed but all those human system qualities that people bring to the table.
[1] https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-crisis-in-physics-is-not-only-about.html https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-crisis-in-phys...
- conception 7y agoI think what people miss about the industry of Science is that, logically, if a paper says "A=Foo" then we'd expect it to be true. And if another comes out that says, "A=Bar" then it's confusing, are both wrong, are both right. But instead, the way it works is a consensus is built. Researcher Bob - "We see that A=Foo." Researcher Sally -"Well, I see that A=Bar." Researcher Timmy - "Well, I see that A=Far." Researcher Kimmy - "Well, I see it as A=Fbar." Community over time - "Now the community has seen that A=Fbar is consistently correct and can be relied upon and used." 20 years pass... Researcher Jeff - "Well, I see that Ab=Fbar actually." Community - "That's bullshit." Researcher Betty - "Well, actually I see that too. But I see Ab=FbarC". etc etc Since we don't know what we don't know, it isn't really a "We're done!" situation for someone to get 100% correct, it's a process of evolution in knowledge.
- mfer 7y ago> We see that A=Foo. I think part of this is that scientists don't "see" as in observe these things. Instead they "think that" something is the case. And, they have math and ideas to back that up. If we had repeatable observation of the things it would be much harder to make disagreeing arguments.
- XorNot 7y agoYou're putting a lot of unstated assumptions into what "observation" is. If you see a shimmer in a desert, does that mean there's an oasis?
- fao_ 7y ago> A post of Sabine's talked about how she thinks the crisis in physics isn't about physics [1]. Is it instead about the politics of the money and popularity? Is it about the psychology of being wrong? I mean, different physicists contradict each other and the truth isn't what's popular it is what's observed, right? If people contradict each other they can't all be right. A good book (or two) for this is Isabel Stenger's Cosmopolitics 1 and 2. She goes into a lot of physics debates from the 20th century, along with a lot of the political debates