2 ms·

Oh please. Who else in the history of (say) physics would you expect to be the biggest detractors of new physics? Botanists? Cantor works as an example. Who

Oh please. Who else in the history of (say) physics would you expect to be the biggest detractors of new physics? Botanists? Cantor works as an example. Who was it that eventually adopted his ideas? Experts aren't infallible, but they are (almost definitionally) the ones doing the work to move their field closer to truth. They may miss the mark sometimes, maybe often, but they're also the only ones hitting the mark.

dntbnmpls 7y ago
> Who else in the history of (say) physics would you expect to be the biggest detractors of new physics? Lots of physicists are detractors of "new physics" https://gizmodo.com/the-dirtiest-fight-in-physics-is-about-the-universe-its-1828562461 https://gizmodo.com/the-dirtiest-fight-in-physics-is-about-t... String theory has tons of detractors. General and special relativity had detractors until experiments. Newton and his physics was criticized. An "invisible force" called gravity that mysteriously acts on objects across distances? We could go back to copernicus, galileo and eventually to aristotlean physics. > Cantor works as an example. Who was it that eventually adopted his ideas? What's your point? > Experts aren't infallible, but they are (almost definitionally) the ones doing the work to move their field closer to truth. But that's not the point. You made it sound like all experts are. I proved to you that it is not the case. Many times, it's the experts doing their damnednest to prevent progress. It's a small group of experts who fight and succeed against established expert dogma. > They may miss the mark sometimes, maybe often, but they're also the only ones hitting the mark. Who is they. You act like "they" are all working towards a common objective. I showed you that's not true. Many times, sadly, experts work hard to maintain the status quo. I suggest you look up a book on philosophy or history of science. It'll be an eye-opener. It seems like you still cling to the silly "perfect" idea of experts.

dntbnmpls 7y ago

> Who else in the history of (say) physics would you expect to be the biggest detractors of new physics? Lots of physicists are detractors of "new physics" https://gizmodo.com/the-dirtiest-fight-in-physics-is-about-the-universe-its-1828562461 https://gizmodo.com/the-dirtiest-fight-in-physics-is-about-t... String theory has tons of detractors. General and special relativity had detractors until experiments. Newton and his physics was criticized. An "invisible force" called gravity that mysteriously acts on objects across distances? We could go back to copernicus, galileo and eventually to aristotlean physics. > Cantor works as an example. Who was it that eventually adopted his ideas? What's your point? > Experts aren't infallible, but they are (almost definitionally) the ones doing the work to move their field closer to truth. But that's not the point. You made it sound like all experts are. I proved to you that it is not the case. Many times, it's the experts doing their damnednest to prevent progress. It's a small group of experts who fight and succeed against established expert dogma. > They may miss the mark sometimes, maybe often, but they're also the only ones hitting the mark. Who is they. You act like "they" are all working towards a common objective. I showed you that's not true. Many times, sadly, experts work hard to maintain the status quo. I suggest you look up a book on philosophy or history of science. It'll be an eye-opener. It seems like you still cling to the silly "perfect" idea of experts.