4 ms·

> I've worked with quite a few professional AMO physicists and the opinions of Sabine's content there are very low. Think for yourself. Learn the math or physi

by noch 6y ago

> I've worked with quite a few professional AMO physicists and the opinions of Sabine's content there are very low. Think for yourself. Learn the math or physics you need and try to form your own conclusions. All books are free. This is the great responsibility for anyone alive in our time and it's hard, thankless work: to think from first principles and to do our own homework. There is no way around it. Needing other people's opinions before rigorously forming our own quickly devolves into talking about people and other people's opinions instead of talking about fundamental ideas. Unless of course one is more interested in talking about opinions and personalities than understanding ideas. If her "content" is poor in someone's eyes, the question that remains relevant is: what are the ideas and their principles?

whimsicalism 6y ago
> Think for yourself. Learn the math or physics you need and try to form your own conclusions I studied physics at Harvard, I'm hardly unstudied in the area, but yes, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know QFT or really anything beyond basic QM and general relativity. > This is the great responsibility for anyone alive in our time and it's hard, thankless work: to think from first principles and to do our own homework Absurd. I do not need to learn advanced GR/QFT from first principles to know enough to comment on Sabine, nor do I need to verify every principle from first axioms in order to come to conclusions. Humans have to learn to rely on trusting the judgements of others in order to make scientific advancement. Physicists can't spend their whole life validating that basic mathematical axioms are true, they have to trust the body of academic mathematicians who have done that work. I reject the entire premise of your comment.
- noch 6y ago
  > Humans have to learn to rely on trusting the judgements of others in order to make scientific advancement. Trust but verify. Better yet, trust your effort first, then trust others later. > I studied physics at Harvard, Wow. Harvard! > Absurd. I do not need to learn advanced GR/QFT from first principles to know enough to comment on Sabine, nor do I need to verify every principle from first axioms in order to come to conclusions Consider if all the people whose opinions you want studied at Harvard like you and also believe the statement you made. Will the blind lead the blind?
davrosthedalek 6y ago
Sorry, but this doesn't scale. You have finite time available, you cannot be a master of everything, and recognizing this and asking for the opinions of those who are, is the right way to handle that.
- noch 6y ago
  > Sorry, but this doesn't scale. As my cello teacher said: the effort is the thing. You probably won't become a master but you have to make the effort. The effort is all. Importantly, everything valuable that is known was once unknown by everybody, including masters. If we don't make the effort, there's no chance of going beyond frontiers. We are left discussing what so-and-so said they think about what so-and-so thinks about what so-and-so wrote about a paper and the author's personality.
  - qayxc 6y ago
    > As my cello teacher said: the effort is the thing. You probably won't become a master but you have to make the effort. The effort is all. Stick with playing the cello then. > Importantly, everything valuable that is known was once unknown by everybody, including masters. We as a species are way beyond the point that laymen - no matter their intellectual capacity - can acquire detailed knowledge about every special topic in even just a single scientific area. This isn't as simple as music theory or perfecting motor functions by means of practising. Just to give you an idea of the scale we're talking here: The journal "General Relativity and Gravity" [1] alone published 167 papers in 2019. Yesterday(!) alone, 20 papers were announced on arxiv.org [2] So assuming you already know GR by heart, you'd need to spend every waking minute of your existence just reading up on what's currently being discussed within the community. This leaves absolutely no time for reflection on and understanding the material, let alone working on original ideas. You are delusional if you think that 200 years of modern mathematics, physics and astronomy can be mastered by a single person, let alone an average person, who rarely has the mental capacity to even understand most of the material en detail. [1] https://link.springer.com/journal/10714/volumes-and-issues https://link.springer.com/journal/10714/volumes-and-issues [2] https://arxiv.org/list/gr-qc/new https://arxiv.org/list/gr-qc/new

by noch 6y ago

whimsicalism 6y ago

> Think for yourself. Learn the math or physics you need and try to form your own conclusions I studied physics at Harvard, I'm hardly unstudied in the area, but yes, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know QFT or really anything beyond basic QM and general relativity. > This is the great responsibility for anyone alive in our time and it's hard, thankless work: to think from first principles and to do our own homework Absurd. I do not need to learn advanced GR/QFT from first principles to know enough to comment on Sabine, nor do I need to verify every principle from first axioms in order to come to conclusions. Humans have to learn to rely on trusting the judgements of others in order to make scientific advancement. Physicists can't spend their whole life validating that basic mathematical axioms are true, they have to trust the body of academic mathematicians who have done that work. I reject the entire premise of your comment.

noch 6y ago
> Humans have to learn to rely on trusting the judgements of others in order to make scientific advancement. Trust but verify. Better yet, trust your effort first, then trust others later. > I studied physics at Harvard, Wow. Harvard! > Absurd. I do not need to learn advanced GR/QFT from first principles to know enough to comment on Sabine, nor do I need to verify every principle from first axioms in order to come to conclusions Consider if all the people whose opinions you want studied at Harvard like you and also believe the statement you made. Will the blind lead the blind?

davrosthedalek 6y ago

Sorry, but this doesn't scale. You have finite time available, you cannot be a master of everything, and recognizing this and asking for the opinions of those who are, is the right way to handle that.

noch 6y ago
> Sorry, but this doesn't scale. As my cello teacher said: the effort is the thing. You probably won't become a master but you have to make the effort. The effort is all. Importantly, everything valuable that is known was once unknown by everybody, including masters. If we don't make the effort, there's no chance of going beyond frontiers. We are left discussing what so-and-so said they think about what so-and-so thinks about what so-and-so wrote about a paper and the author's personality.
- qayxc 6y ago
  > As my cello teacher said: the effort is the thing. You probably won't become a master but you have to make the effort. The effort is all. Stick with playing the cello then. > Importantly, everything valuable that is known was once unknown by everybody, including masters. We as a species are way beyond the point that laymen - no matter their intellectual capacity - can acquire detailed knowledge about every special topic in even just a single scientific area. This isn't as simple as music theory or perfecting motor functions by means of practising. Just to give you an idea of the scale we're talking here: The journal "General Relativity and Gravity" [1] alone published 167 papers in 2019. Yesterday(!) alone, 20 papers were announced on arxiv.org [2] So assuming you already know GR by heart, you'd need to spend every waking minute of your existence just reading up on what's currently being discussed within the community. This leaves absolutely no time for reflection on and understanding the material, let alone working on original ideas. You are delusional if you think that 200 years of modern mathematics, physics and astronomy can be mastered by a single person, let alone an average person, who rarely has the mental capacity to even understand most of the material en detail. [1] https://link.springer.com/journal/10714/volumes-and-issues https://link.springer.com/journal/10714/volumes-and-issues [2] https://arxiv.org/list/gr-qc/new https://arxiv.org/list/gr-qc/new