4 ms·

Most of these are silly pedantry of the type that, IMO, turns people away from math and science by making it seem like you have to be interested in pointless, i

by avalys 6y ago

Most of these are silly pedantry of the type that, IMO, turns people away from math and science by making it seem like you have to be interested in pointless, inconsequential distinctions and “gotcha” factoids to be good at science. Unfortunately material like this also makes up a substantial fraction of what passes for science education in the US.

human 6y ago
Sabine is known for that kind of sense of humour. She is actually critical of the scientific elites.
- avalys 6y ago
  Oh, is this a parody? It is a little too close to the source material, hah.
  - 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 6y ago
    "Today I will tell you how to be just as annoying as a real physicist. And the easiest way to do that is to insist correcting people when it really doesn't matter" The video is pretty nice in that it teaches interesting facts and at the same time criticizing the behaviour you mentioned (I agree with you). The video itself is named "How to talk like a physicist", so the blog post linked here could be a bit misleading in that regard if one does not know Sabine Hossenfelder already.
    - wruza 6y ago
      I don’t think that “annoying” is not figurative here and I do not agree. Instead of being fed with eli5 explanations as I was in my childhood, these people and articles uncovered an entire world of hard, real physics to my layman curiosity that I still try to grasp. It was not what turned me off physics, it was what drove me into it. If someone cannot stand pedantry, chances are they’ll be fine with explanations that are simply wrong and nobody will point that out. See a root comment on light speed in medium itt, for example.
      - 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 6y ago
        I think that the problem described by the OP of this comment chain and the beauty in science you describe are two separate things. I personally enjoy in-depth explanations, that does not contradict the fact that there are situations in which pedantry is simply misplaced or even used for the sole purpose of "one upping" each other and not for actual precision, and that is something that can be done just as well on higher levels and among practicioners even. Or it is used in situations where the pedantic correction is not related to the actual subject of the conversation. It is my interpretation that these are the situations the video actually parodies. NOT situations in which a related oversimplification is corrected. To be more precise myself I'd update my agreement with the OP comment to "I agree that the general sentiment of being pedantic in inappropriate situations is bad, I still enjoyed the facts presented in the video". Which is what I wanted to convey with my comment. This would also mean that I only partially agree with the OP comment, because I enjoy the facts themselves.
- colpabar 6y ago
  She recently complained about the particle physicists' love of hyper expensive colliders that seemingly only produce the need for even more expensive colliders, which I found pretty interesting. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24866927 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24866927
Koiwai 6y ago
The article starts with: "Today I will tell you how to be just as annoying as a real physicist. And the easiest way to do that is to insist correcting people when it really doesn’t matter." If you still don't get that, I might have bad news for you.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
Sure, it's annoying, silly pedantry if you treat knowledge as coins that let you feel smart. If you care at all about having an accurate (even if not precise) picture of the world, then correcting these misconceptions matter - they're not misconceptions of detail, but of mental models. To take #1, Earth orbiting the Sun. It's a fine shorthand, assuming you remember that all matter attracts all other matter gravitationally. If you do, you'll not be surprised by learning about how black holes work, or figuring out why planets are spherical, etc. If you don't, you'll probably end up considering gravity a magic glue between objects - which may also point out towards critical epistemological problems, like thinking objects (like "Earth" or "dog") are first-class in reality (vs. being just convenient boundaries around matter that humans draw, boundary itself not being a real thing). Knowledge is deeply interconnected; getting one bit wrong can make you wrong about a lot of other things. Conversely, fixing one wrong may fix a bunch of others too. Also, in my experience, response to such "pedantry" varies. I've known people who were grateful for such corrections, and used them as springboards to read up some more. These people ended up being the ones having any kind of clue about how the world (both physical and social) functions, unlike general population. A difference in attitude, perhaps?
paulpauper 6y ago
I would rather have a correct or improved understanding of things than be concerned about turning people away from a field of study

by avalys 6y ago

human 6y ago

Sabine is known for that kind of sense of humour. She is actually critical of the scientific elites.

avalys 6y ago
Oh, is this a parody? It is a little too close to the source material, hah.
- 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 6y ago
  "Today I will tell you how to be just as annoying as a real physicist. And the easiest way to do that is to insist correcting people when it really doesn't matter" The video is pretty nice in that it teaches interesting facts and at the same time criticizing the behaviour you mentioned (I agree with you). The video itself is named "How to talk like a physicist", so the blog post linked here could be a bit misleading in that regard if one does not know Sabine Hossenfelder already.
  - wruza 6y ago
    I don’t think that “annoying” is not figurative here and I do not agree. Instead of being fed with eli5 explanations as I was in my childhood, these people and articles uncovered an entire world of hard, real physics to my layman curiosity that I still try to grasp. It was not what turned me off physics, it was what drove me into it. If someone cannot stand pedantry, chances are they’ll be fine with explanations that are simply wrong and nobody will point that out. See a root comment on light speed in medium itt, for example.
    - 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 6y ago
      I think that the problem described by the OP of this comment chain and the beauty in science you describe are two separate things. I personally enjoy in-depth explanations, that does not contradict the fact that there are situations in which pedantry is simply misplaced or even used for the sole purpose of "one upping" each other and not for actual precision, and that is something that can be done just as well on higher levels and among practicioners even. Or it is used in situations where the pedantic correction is not related to the actual subject of the conversation. It is my interpretation that these are the situations the video actually parodies. NOT situations in which a related oversimplification is corrected. To be more precise myself I'd update my agreement with the OP comment to "I agree that the general sentiment of being pedantic in inappropriate situations is bad, I still enjoyed the facts presented in the video". Which is what I wanted to convey with my comment. This would also mean that I only partially agree with the OP comment, because I enjoy the facts themselves.
colpabar 6y ago
She recently complained about the particle physicists' love of hyper expensive colliders that seemingly only produce the need for even more expensive colliders, which I found pretty interesting. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24866927 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24866927

Koiwai 6y ago

The article starts with: "Today I will tell you how to be just as annoying as a real physicist. And the easiest way to do that is to insist correcting people when it really doesn’t matter." If you still don't get that, I might have bad news for you.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

Sure, it's annoying, silly pedantry if you treat knowledge as coins that let you feel smart. If you care at all about having an accurate (even if not precise) picture of the world, then correcting these misconceptions matter - they're not misconceptions of detail, but of mental models. To take #1, Earth orbiting the Sun. It's a fine shorthand, assuming you remember that all matter attracts all other matter gravitationally. If you do, you'll not be surprised by learning about how black holes work, or figuring out why planets are spherical, etc. If you don't, you'll probably end up considering gravity a magic glue between objects - which may also point out towards critical epistemological problems, like thinking objects (like "Earth" or "dog") are first-class in reality (vs. being just convenient boundaries around matter that humans draw, boundary itself not being a real thing). Knowledge is deeply interconnected; getting one bit wrong can make you wrong about a lot of other things. Conversely, fixing one wrong may fix a bunch of others too. Also, in my experience, response to such "pedantry" varies. I've known people who were grateful for such corrections, and used them as springboards to read up some more. These people ended up being the ones having any kind of clue about how the world (both physical and social) functions, unlike general population. A difference in attitude, perhaps?

paulpauper 6y ago

I would rather have a correct or improved understanding of things than be concerned about turning people away from a field of study