3 ms·

"We now think that" is the qualifier on the entirety of physics. It's redundant.

h2odragon 5y ago
I'll certainly give the authors of the papers the benefit of a presumption of humility; it's the people "translating into layman's terms" and "passing on knowledge" that introduce Authority, and other errors, as part of the process. "Think for yourself, schmuck" is the only dogma worth petting.
abainbridge 5y ago
Haha. True. Some parts of physics are way shakier than others though. For example, the whole big bang, dark matter, dark energy area needs the qualifier of, "We know we've got something wrong here, but its the best we've got". (eg see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Problems_and_related_issues_in_physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Problems_and_related_...). I'm trying not to be controversial here. I'm just using this as an example of physics with well known problems. Regarding, "Quarks are the fundamental building blocks", do we actually think that? If so, why? I'm genuinely curious. Is it just because we haven't seen anything more fundamental? That would violate your "We now think that" qualifier - ie if that is the reason, the qualifier should be "We have NO reason to think that...".
- ThinkBeat 5y ago
  There is a theory about Preons. This theory has fallen out of fashion. "In particle physics, preons are point particles, conceived of as sub-components of quarks and leptons." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon
- brianpan 5y ago
  It's much worse than you think. In physics there is 1) we know this is definitely wrong but it's useful and 2) this is very right so far and it's probably going to be wrong. I'm only a little bit joking. Now, I am not a physicist but I have been in a physics rabbit hole for a few months now. The absolute best most experimentally verified theories we have are: general relativity and quantum mechanics. These are the pinnacle of physics. And they are incompatible with each other. So we know for sure that one is wrong. Or both are wrong. String theory might be the resolution of that, making strings the most fundamental thing. But we've been working on it for 50 years with basically nothing to show for it so far. And there may be more beyond strings, who knows. Of course there are many things in physics we can say with great confidence. But in terms of fundamental understanding there is ONLY "we now think that".
complexmango 5y ago
If only epidemiologists had such humility

I'll certainly give the authors of the papers the benefit of a presumption of humility; it's the people "translating into layman's terms" and "passing on knowledge" that introduce Authority, and other errors, as part of the process. "Think for yourself, schmuck" is the only dogma worth petting.

abainbridge 5y ago

Haha. True. Some parts of physics are way shakier than others though. For example, the whole big bang, dark matter, dark energy area needs the qualifier of, "We know we've got something wrong here, but its the best we've got". (eg see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Problems_and_related_issues_in_physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Problems_and_related_...). I'm trying not to be controversial here. I'm just using this as an example of physics with well known problems. Regarding, "Quarks are the fundamental building blocks", do we actually think that? If so, why? I'm genuinely curious. Is it just because we haven't seen anything more fundamental? That would violate your "We now think that" qualifier - ie if that is the reason, the qualifier should be "We have NO reason to think that...".

ThinkBeat 5y ago
There is a theory about Preons. This theory has fallen out of fashion. "In particle physics, preons are point particles, conceived of as sub-components of quarks and leptons." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon
brianpan 5y ago
It's much worse than you think. In physics there is 1) we know this is definitely wrong but it's useful and 2) this is very right so far and it's probably going to be wrong. I'm only a little bit joking. Now, I am not a physicist but I have been in a physics rabbit hole for a few months now. The absolute best most experimentally verified theories we have are: general relativity and quantum mechanics. These are the pinnacle of physics. And they are incompatible with each other. So we know for sure that one is wrong. Or both are wrong. String theory might be the resolution of that, making strings the most fundamental thing. But we've been working on it for 50 years with basically nothing to show for it so far. And there may be more beyond strings, who knows. Of course there are many things in physics we can say with great confidence. But in terms of fundamental understanding there is ONLY "we now think that".

complexmango 5y ago

If only epidemiologists had such humility