4 ms·
Of course the wording is understandable, it’s downright trivial as a concept. It certainly doesn’t take an astronomy degree to comprehend it. My objection is to
by explaininjs 3y ago
Of course the wording is understandable, it’s downright trivial as a concept. It certainly doesn’t take an astronomy degree to comprehend it. My objection is to the idea that some “expert” in the field is presented with new facts that seemingly stand in opposition to the prior commonly held belief and is able to immediately pivot to “wow we sure have a deep understanding here, now! now, we just about know everything!”
And people with astronomy degrees are quite likely to believe astronomical observations bring them closer to “The Truth”, because “data”. Just as people with CS degrees believe computational study does the same, because “simulation”. And those with Psyc degrees…
- goodcanadian 3y agoI don't see anything that stands "in opposition to the prior commonly held belief" nor any claim that "now, we just about know everything!" It seems like a natural progression of our understanding. Perhaps, you read a different article than I did.
- explaininjs 3y agoI in fact directly quoted what I am referring to in my first comment. Perhaps you responded to a different comment than intended? And the whole point of the article is to say we used to think these things were super rare but actually they’re quite common… now we know everything!