5 ms·

Why do random non-experts always think they have poked holes in the most fleshed out scientific theories?

meowface 6y ago
Speculation and asking questions is fun. Also, as I understand, it's not an uncommon belief among physicists that singularities may just be an artifact of GR being incomplete, kind of like a divide by zero error in the math which doesn't necessarily exist in reality. So I don't think that poster was questioning established science; I believe there's still a lot of open debate and uncertainty about if black hole centers contain infinitely dense singularities or just something that's incredibly but finitely dense. No one knows. There is indeed a common form of arrogant layman skepticism that confidently and ignorantly assumes scientists haven't thought about [some thing], but I don't think this is an example of it.
- deeeeplearning 6y ago
  The problem is that the VAST majority of layman "theories" especially in Theoretical Physics fall into the Not Even Wrong category and are totally without merit or worth discussing.
  - meowface 6y ago
    That's true. But we're also kind of staring at a sheer wall at the moment. No one seems to be making significant theoretical progress in physics, and when the physicists are stumped, it rouses everyone else's curiosity. Personally, I think the more crackpot ideas, the better; as long as they're not presented in a crackpot way (e.g. the proposer having high confidence or even certainty in their random speculation). And even the ones that are not even wrong can at least lead to useful, intellectual discussion so that the proposer can understand the landscape a bit more and at least closer to the "mere wrong" category. Though I also agree it's much better for people to understand the existing state of affairs before proposing things as if the leading experts have somehow never considered [X] when [X] has been talked about for decades.
    - deeeeplearning 6y ago
      >No one seems to be making significant theoretical progress in physics, and when the physicists are stumped, it rouses everyone else's curiosity. Definitely true but I think that points more to a broken system, where String Theorists have totally dominated the field for several decades and we have nothing to show for it. If you aren't a string theorist you are going to have serious trouble getting a tenure position and attracting good grad students at major research Universities and so the field is stifled. >Personally, I think the more crackpot ideas, the better; as long as they're not presented in a crackpot way (e.g. the proposer having high confidence or even certainty in their random speculation). And even the ones that are not even wrong can at least lead to useful, intellectual discussion so that the proposer can understand the landscape a bit more and at least closer to the "mere wrong" category. I don't think this is a good approach, you'll have lots of people wasting lots of time. There are alternatives to String Theory out there they just haven't had the mental horsepower pointed at them because everyone is busy playing with pretty math in string theory.
      - meowface 6y ago
        >I don't think this is a good approach, you'll have lots of people wasting lots of time. There are alternatives to String Theory out there they just haven't had the mental horsepower pointed at them because everyone is busy playing with pretty math in string theory. I definitely think that should be done, too. But for someone who doesn't have that option of pointing their horsepower at an idea (i.e. they don't work anywhere as a physicist / aren't a physicist), the most you can do is musingly speculate online and the least you can do is nothing. I agree that most actual / working physicists shouldn't dilute their collective cognition and potential resources by each working primarily on their own pet theory. I just feel like for something as deeply mysterious and hard to pierce as this topic, there's some probability that every existing proposal might be wrong (and maybe not even very useful), so constant pure creative ideation among those who can't offer anything else might be a low-risk high-reward activity - albeit one with almost no chance of success - if done very cautiously and humbly.

Speculation and asking questions is fun. Also, as I understand, it's not an uncommon belief among physicists that singularities may just be an artifact of GR being incomplete, kind of like a divide by zero error in the math which doesn't necessarily exist in reality. So I don't think that poster was questioning established science; I believe there's still a lot of open debate and uncertainty about if black hole centers contain infinitely dense singularities or just something that's incredibly but finitely dense. No one knows. There is indeed a common form of arrogant layman skepticism that confidently and ignorantly assumes scientists haven't thought about [some thing], but I don't think this is an example of it.

deeeeplearning 6y ago
The problem is that the VAST majority of layman "theories" especially in Theoretical Physics fall into the Not Even Wrong category and are totally without merit or worth discussing.
- meowface 6y ago
  That's true. But we're also kind of staring at a sheer wall at the moment. No one seems to be making significant theoretical progress in physics, and when the physicists are stumped, it rouses everyone else's curiosity. Personally, I think the more crackpot ideas, the better; as long as they're not presented in a crackpot way (e.g. the proposer having high confidence or even certainty in their random speculation). And even the ones that are not even wrong can at least lead to useful, intellectual discussion so that the proposer can understand the landscape a bit more and at least closer to the "mere wrong" category. Though I also agree it's much better for people to understand the existing state of affairs before proposing things as if the leading experts have somehow never considered [X] when [X] has been talked about for decades.
  - deeeeplearning 6y ago
    >No one seems to be making significant theoretical progress in physics, and when the physicists are stumped, it rouses everyone else's curiosity. Definitely true but I think that points more to a broken system, where String Theorists have totally dominated the field for several decades and we have nothing to show for it. If you aren't a string theorist you are going to have serious trouble getting a tenure position and attracting good grad students at major research Universities and so the field is stifled. >Personally, I think the more crackpot ideas, the better; as long as they're not presented in a crackpot way (e.g. the proposer having high confidence or even certainty in their random speculation). And even the ones that are not even wrong can at least lead to useful, intellectual discussion so that the proposer can understand the landscape a bit more and at least closer to the "mere wrong" category. I don't think this is a good approach, you'll have lots of people wasting lots of time. There are alternatives to String Theory out there they just haven't had the mental horsepower pointed at them because everyone is busy playing with pretty math in string theory.
    - meowface 6y ago
      >I don't think this is a good approach, you'll have lots of people wasting lots of time. There are alternatives to String Theory out there they just haven't had the mental horsepower pointed at them because everyone is busy playing with pretty math in string theory. I definitely think that should be done, too. But for someone who doesn't have that option of pointing their horsepower at an idea (i.e. they don't work anywhere as a physicist / aren't a physicist), the most you can do is musingly speculate online and the least you can do is nothing. I agree that most actual / working physicists shouldn't dilute their collective cognition and potential resources by each working primarily on their own pet theory. I just feel like for something as deeply mysterious and hard to pierce as this topic, there's some probability that every existing proposal might be wrong (and maybe not even very useful), so constant pure creative ideation among those who can't offer anything else might be a low-risk high-reward activity - albeit one with almost no chance of success - if done very cautiously and humbly.