5 ms·
Well, i don't know, i think lots of things in physics have been oversold. It's just that the requirements for sellability is that someone has translated it into
by wholinator2 3y ago
Well, i don't know, i think lots of things in physics have been oversold. It's just that the requirements for sellability is that someone has translated it into lay speech, whether or not that speech is technically accurate. We had the "god particle", black hole hype, quantum computing mega-hype, "fusion within 10 years", etc.
I think you might just be a little too high in the food chain to see the vast amounts of lay speculation about physics that goes on. Certainly less volume of speech than psychology but i think for the respective popularity of the fields, people find it _more engaging_ to do speculation of physical reality than just another psychological paper. The majority of journalists oversell everything. It's just that it's less often that physics makes it into regular magazines and publications, i think
- willcipriano 3y ago[flagged]
- psychphysic 3y agoI suspect your comment will be removed by mods but I wanted to take a shot at replying anyways. I'm not sure psychologists are the drivers of that. Psychologists perhaps to a fault hate medications and other external influences on a body. Just look at their fervent anti-antidepresssnt pushes and opposition to antipsychotics. It's true that supportive psychological therapies are taking over and even contaminating CBT to the point it can feel like professional gaslighting.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoNuclear Weapons?
- willcipriano 3y agoPoliticians generally decide where weapons are deployed. The potential for them to exist isn't up to the physicists they are merely reporting accurately the state of the natural world. I can't find the quote but Eisenhower reportly met with a physicist after the bombing of Japan who was upset with his role in it and said something to the effect of "get this whiny guy out of here, I'm the one who gave the order".
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoYou seem to think somehow Psychologist have a lot of control over their results, and blame them for 'doing things'. But for physics, well, they are just un-earthing facts and its those politicians that pull the trigger. More false dichotomy. When anybody else (physicist) does something, its just benign, "I'm just doing science. WUT, nuclear weapons, cloning, bio-weapons. Not me". When a psychologist does something, "they are trying to control us. they are forcing us to do things against our will".
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Xcelerate 3y agoI think it was Oppenheimer. It’s a bit of an arrogant statement on Eisenhower’s part if true. History is more likely to remember Oppenheimer’s contributions than some random politician of one of hundreds of countries throughout history.
- willcipriano 3y agoIt's not arrogance it's leadership. He is saying any blood is on his hands, he's taking responsibility. I'd demand the same from anyone trusted to order the use of these weapons.
- gcr 3y agowhat does being trans have to do with any of this? why bring that in here? while we're off-topic, please also consider the "potential harm" of suicide within trans communities and compare how access to HRT influences that. most of my trans friends who have considered suicide recently have done so in part because of the increasing hatred & vilification of trans people. your words already have "potential harm."
- willcipriano 3y agoI knew that comments would come that illustrate my point. Ultimately the urge to shut down reasonable concern about the long term impact of these interventions particularly when applied to young men and women and phrased respectfully is unscientific. Physicists would laugh anyone out of the room who attempted to control the discourse so tightly.