3 ms·
I’m just generally increasingly off put by the internets incessant “quibbling”. This seemingly endless juxtaposition of antithesis to follow any thesis. At some
by ianai 5y ago
I’m just generally increasingly off put by the internets incessant “quibbling”. This seemingly endless juxtaposition of antithesis to follow any thesis. At some point that becomes just more noise, and that can be used by an agenda.
I still found her point valid and interesting and not at all noise. My takeaway is more that new physics might well be out of our energetic grasps until we build some much larger accelerators. Little idea how to convince society of the worth of that expense. Maybe if it can produce useful substances for industrial use. I’d love more knowledge on expansions to the periodic table, for example.
- thechao 5y agoThe HN-centric term for this is "middlebrow"; a good middlebrow filter is definitely required to navigate HN.
- ianai 5y agoCan you elaborate?
- rad88 5y agoAdding more because I've read her book (not to quibble). I wouldn't say the point is that new physics is out of reach until we build more expensive accelerators. She herself is a theoretical physicist, has theories she'd like to see tested and proposes experiments that could do so. I think she's saying rather that particle physics involves enormous opportunity costs -- decades long / billion dollar experiments -- and that the research agenda is not scientifically justified, but is sociological and even aesthetic in origin.
- edgyquant 5y agoI am as well, because the internet isn’t designed for people to reach an objective consensus about reality nor does it account for the way humans really engage one another naturally. We need a platform designed to encourage people to reach understanding but anyone, myself included, who wants to do this is looking for a profit motive when some things are more important than profit as much as I hate to say it.