4 ms·

Whose fault is that?

jfengel 4y ago
There are many at fault for that. Educators, parents, scientists, politicians... It's a complex web of blame. But the layman's belief that a YouTube video is sufficient background to reject the work of scientists... that's on them. They should know that a video, or even several videos, is not enough. We should all be able to recognize Mount Stupid.
- halpmeh 4y ago
  As far as I know, and feel free to correct me, string theory has received many million in funding and yielded exactly zero empirical results. I agree that you won’t become an expert in theoretical physics from a YouTube video, but one can definitely tell when nothing of use has been produced.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    That's exactly it. What the videos never mention is that experimental results aren't really expected. The unification energy is stupid high. Which is why the other thing the videos never mention: you won't expect experimental results from any of the competing theories, either. This isn't a serious scientific debate. It's a few scientists annoyed that they're getting less funding, and accusing the string theory people of exactly the same things they do. There is a genuine scientific debate here, and a lot of real problems. None of which they make videos about. Note in particular that "millions" is probably right, and it's pocket change compared to the LHC -- which is NOT a string theory experiment. Its energies are well within the standard model, which is the problem. There is no practical way for us to get outside that range. String theory persists because it's pencil and paper and grad students, and doesn't cost that much. An argument could be made for shutting down the LHC and sending the money to soil science or lupus or something else more likely to produce results. But the string theory arguments being conducted via YouTube are abysmal science.
    - halpmeh 4y ago
      I believe the argument is not that X should be funded over Y. Rather, the argument is that a theory should have a clear path to producing empirical evidence in order to receive serious funding. Otherwise, the money is guaranteed to be wasted. There are a million different models one could devise to fit any given number of parameters. Without empirical evidence, it’s impossible to pick one. That’s the argument. And the fact that we’ve gone from “the layman couldn’t possibly understand the science” to “it doesn’t cost that much any way” is telling. How about a good reason to keep doing this type of research at all?
europeanguy 4y ago
I don't think it's anyone's fault, is it? Some things are just intrinsically complex. You can't expect Bob to keep up with the latest research in every scientific topic, when his priorities are going to work, paying rent and feeding his kids.

There are many at fault for that. Educators, parents, scientists, politicians... It's a complex web of blame. But the layman's belief that a YouTube video is sufficient background to reject the work of scientists... that's on them. They should know that a video, or even several videos, is not enough. We should all be able to recognize Mount Stupid.

halpmeh 4y ago
As far as I know, and feel free to correct me, string theory has received many million in funding and yielded exactly zero empirical results. I agree that you won’t become an expert in theoretical physics from a YouTube video, but one can definitely tell when nothing of use has been produced.
- jfengel 4y ago
  That's exactly it. What the videos never mention is that experimental results aren't really expected. The unification energy is stupid high. Which is why the other thing the videos never mention: you won't expect experimental results from any of the competing theories, either. This isn't a serious scientific debate. It's a few scientists annoyed that they're getting less funding, and accusing the string theory people of exactly the same things they do. There is a genuine scientific debate here, and a lot of real problems. None of which they make videos about. Note in particular that "millions" is probably right, and it's pocket change compared to the LHC -- which is NOT a string theory experiment. Its energies are well within the standard model, which is the problem. There is no practical way for us to get outside that range. String theory persists because it's pencil and paper and grad students, and doesn't cost that much. An argument could be made for shutting down the LHC and sending the money to soil science or lupus or something else more likely to produce results. But the string theory arguments being conducted via YouTube are abysmal science.
  - halpmeh 4y ago
    I believe the argument is not that X should be funded over Y. Rather, the argument is that a theory should have a clear path to producing empirical evidence in order to receive serious funding. Otherwise, the money is guaranteed to be wasted. There are a million different models one could devise to fit any given number of parameters. Without empirical evidence, it’s impossible to pick one. That’s the argument. And the fact that we’ve gone from “the layman couldn’t possibly understand the science” to “it doesn’t cost that much any way” is telling. How about a good reason to keep doing this type of research at all?

europeanguy 4y ago

I don't think it's anyone's fault, is it? Some things are just intrinsically complex. You can't expect Bob to keep up with the latest research in every scientific topic, when his priorities are going to work, paying rent and feeding his kids.