4 ms·

I agree with you, if the broader point is that she always finds the contrarian position, even if there's no evidence for it. For example, she makes a point her

I agree with you, if the broader point is that she always finds the contrarian position, even if there's no evidence for it. For example, she makes a point here that you need data to gain useful insight into the black hole radiation problem. That is not true and has no compelling evidence that there will be true, because she cannot predict fundamental new insights about the future nor is it clear this is a problem strictly dependent on data, since we can build models of our world with computational structures.

bryan0 5y ago
> she cannot predict fundamental new insights about the future nor is it clear this is a problem strictly dependent on data, since we can build models of our world with computational structures. I think she is saying that these models cannot solve anything because multiple contradictory models can each be valid within our current mathematical / theoretical framework. We need actual data to rule some of them out to find a real solution of what is physically happening.