4 ms·

You patronized the entire community of thousands of cosmologists who have trained their entire lives to think about this. They have had every thought you've had

by vecter 5y ago

You patronized the entire community of thousands of cosmologists who have trained their entire lives to think about this. They have had every thought you've had, but with much more knowledge and context. Do you not realize that?

denton-scratch 5y ago
I know that there are only a few thousand professional cosmologists in the world - maybe only a few hundred. I don't know why a professional cosmologist should feel patronised by some twat like me. Some people up-thread have had a go at explaining things; I've learned, and I have some study leads. I don't learn from patronising insults.
denton-scratch 5y ago
If you are a professional science researcher, I think your job includes explaining to the rest of us what you have learned. I don't think you are supposed to mock the rest of us, because we don't know as much as you know. I've never pretended to be anything other than an interested layman. I'm pretty surprised at the downvotes and hostility I've met. I mean, I knew my opinions were unpopular; I expected downvotes, but not hostility.
- vecter 5y ago
  If you don’t want that kind of reaction, phrase your point of view in a way that’s more curious and less with the tone and perspective of “those guys are clueless and wrong.” I’m not a cosmologist. I don’t have a degree in physics. But when I read your comment, I was as upset as any of them would’ve been.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    Alright, so perhaps my tone was ill-considered. I certainly don't think “those guys are clueless and wrong” - those guys are the people who worked out the stuff I think I know about the cosmos - not me. I'm dazzled by what they've done. When I were a lad, the Big Bang theory was treated with scepticism; the orthodoxy was Hoyle's steady state. Big Bang is now orthodoxy, steady state is dead, and Penrose is out in the weeds. Similarly the idea of a black hole was considered pretty left-field. It's now more-or-less proved. These changes have happened in my lifetime. My point is that what is considered orthodox can change in just a couple of decades; it's not insane to question whether an orthodoxy that's been in place for just a couple of decades (and is itself pretty speculative) should have the status of scientific fact. I'd be a fool to think that modern cosmological theory is in any way a final answer. Sure, I wouldn't recognise a Lagrange equation if it slapped me in the face. Similarly, I'm not an economist; I can't prove that Friedman had the wrong end of the stick. But I can still make reasonable judgements about a government's economic policies, and my judgements are sometimes more right than those of experts.
    - vecter 5y ago
      > My point is that what is considered orthodox can change in just a couple of decades; There will clearly be more revolutions in physics over time. We know the Standard Model is are wrong. Dark Matter and Dark Energy may be right or wrong. We need more experimental evidence to help us decide. This is not a new insight that you've had. Literally every physicist knows this. > it's not insane to question whether an orthodoxy that's been in place for just a couple of decades (and is itself pretty speculative) should have the status of scientific fact. What makes you think that physicists think that anything that's been discussed is scientific "fact"? More importantly, there is no value in you, me, or any layman without an even undergraduate-level understanding of math and physics questioning anything that you don't know a single thing about. You don't even know what you don't know, and despite your claims of humility, your earlier writings clearly demonstrated either incredible arrogance, naivety, or both. > Similarly, I'm not an economist; I can't prove that Friedman had the wrong end of the stick. But I can still make reasonable judgements about a government's economic policies, and my judgements are sometimes more right than those of experts. This analogy is wrong. I could go into why you probably didn't even understand why the experts believed what they believed, but I don't have time for that. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And even if someone is wrong, their thought process could have been better and more informed than yours. Your analogy breaks down because none of that has any bearing to cosmology. You don't understand any foundational knowledge required to even begin to have an elementary conversation. Saying "I don't buy these existing theories" is actually making a very strong statement, because it implies that you understand what the current theories are, why they are what they are, and all of the other theories that have been ruled out for various reasons. And if you don't know any of this, then your opinion is literally worthless in the epistemological sense. When I was an undergraduate studying computer science, I met a graduate mathematics student at a programming competition. I asked him if he could explain his research to me. He said "no". I wasn't upset, nor did I tell him that his theories were wrong. Rather, I was enlightened. I realized that there was no way he could possibly explain the abstract concepts that he was studying to a person who barely understood linear algebra. It would have taken me years of hard studying to begin to be able to grasp the kinds of problems that he was tackling, the approaches that he was taking, and why. This is no different.

by vecter 5y ago

denton-scratch 5y ago

I know that there are only a few thousand professional cosmologists in the world - maybe only a few hundred. I don't know why a professional cosmologist should feel patronised by some twat like me. Some people up-thread have had a go at explaining things; I've learned, and I have some study leads. I don't learn from patronising insults.

denton-scratch 5y ago

If you are a professional science researcher, I think your job includes explaining to the rest of us what you have learned. I don't think you are supposed to mock the rest of us, because we don't know as much as you know. I've never pretended to be anything other than an interested layman. I'm pretty surprised at the downvotes and hostility I've met. I mean, I knew my opinions were unpopular; I expected downvotes, but not hostility.

vecter 5y ago
If you don’t want that kind of reaction, phrase your point of view in a way that’s more curious and less with the tone and perspective of “those guys are clueless and wrong.” I’m not a cosmologist. I don’t have a degree in physics. But when I read your comment, I was as upset as any of them would’ve been.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  Alright, so perhaps my tone was ill-considered. I certainly don't think “those guys are clueless and wrong” - those guys are the people who worked out the stuff I think I know about the cosmos - not me. I'm dazzled by what they've done. When I were a lad, the Big Bang theory was treated with scepticism; the orthodoxy was Hoyle's steady state. Big Bang is now orthodoxy, steady state is dead, and Penrose is out in the weeds. Similarly the idea of a black hole was considered pretty left-field. It's now more-or-less proved. These changes have happened in my lifetime. My point is that what is considered orthodox can change in just a couple of decades; it's not insane to question whether an orthodoxy that's been in place for just a couple of decades (and is itself pretty speculative) should have the status of scientific fact. I'd be a fool to think that modern cosmological theory is in any way a final answer. Sure, I wouldn't recognise a Lagrange equation if it slapped me in the face. Similarly, I'm not an economist; I can't prove that Friedman had the wrong end of the stick. But I can still make reasonable judgements about a government's economic policies, and my judgements are sometimes more right than those of experts.
  - vecter 5y ago
    > My point is that what is considered orthodox can change in just a couple of decades; There will clearly be more revolutions in physics over time. We know the Standard Model is are wrong. Dark Matter and Dark Energy may be right or wrong. We need more experimental evidence to help us decide. This is not a new insight that you've had. Literally every physicist knows this. > it's not insane to question whether an orthodoxy that's been in place for just a couple of decades (and is itself pretty speculative) should have the status of scientific fact. What makes you think that physicists think that anything that's been discussed is scientific "fact"? More importantly, there is no value in you, me, or any layman without an even undergraduate-level understanding of math and physics questioning anything that you don't know a single thing about. You don't even know what you don't know, and despite your claims of humility, your earlier writings clearly demonstrated either incredible arrogance, naivety, or both. > Similarly, I'm not an economist; I can't prove that Friedman had the wrong end of the stick. But I can still make reasonable judgements about a government's economic policies, and my judgements are sometimes more right than those of experts. This analogy is wrong. I could go into why you probably didn't even understand why the experts believed what they believed, but I don't have time for that. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And even if someone is wrong, their thought process could have been better and more informed than yours. Your analogy breaks down because none of that has any bearing to cosmology. You don't understand any foundational knowledge required to even begin to have an elementary conversation. Saying "I don't buy these existing theories" is actually making a very strong statement, because it implies that you understand what the current theories are, why they are what they are, and all of the other theories that have been ruled out for various reasons. And if you don't know any of this, then your opinion is literally worthless in the epistemological sense. When I was an undergraduate studying computer science, I met a graduate mathematics student at a programming competition. I asked him if he could explain his research to me. He said "no". I wasn't upset, nor did I tell him that his theories were wrong. Rather, I was enlightened. I realized that there was no way he could possibly explain the abstract concepts that he was studying to a person who barely understood linear algebra. It would have taken me years of hard studying to begin to be able to grasp the kinds of problems that he was tackling, the approaches that he was taking, and why. This is no different.