3 ms·

I think it depends on the topic. Of course there are always going to be pop-sci magazines trying to explain things like quantum physics to the layman (as if sci

I think it depends on the topic. Of course there are always going to be pop-sci magazines trying to explain things like quantum physics to the layman (as if scientists themselves really understand it), so no way to avoid this, but maybe not a lot of value either, even if people enjoy thinking they understand something. For simpler and more accessible topics though, like the examples I gave, I do think there is value in teaching partially-correct simplifications. For one thing, you have to start somewhere, so if some partial understanding is what sparks some kid's interest into pursuing the sciences, then that is a good thing. Maybe more importantly(?), given that most people won't be going into science-based jobs, is just having some base level of scientific literacy, especially in a world (particularly the USA) where religious belief and conspiracy theories, rather than rational thought, seem to be in danger of dominating society.

petsfed 3y ago
I agree with you on just about everything you wrote, except the following passage which neatly sets up the widespread conspiracy theories and erroneous religious beliefs that currently plague our civilization. >trying to explain things like quantum physics to the layman (as if scientists themselves really understand it) There's this common misconception that physicists somehow don't understand quantum mechanics. The problem with quantum mechanics (and a whole host of other experimentally-supported theories) is that they describe things so completely removed from our everyday experience (and indeed, occur in regimes that human beings have never experienced even indirectly until the last 100 or so years) that our everyday intuition is wrong every time. But if you understand the math of quantum mechanics, and you understand how the experiments relate to the math, then you understand how quantum mechanics works. Its not actually that complicated, its just weird. There are ~1900 PhDs in physics awarded every year, so certainly, tens of thousands of people across the world do understand how it works. Now, if you're going to quibble and say "do the scientists understand what spin really is?" then congratulations, you've just reinvented Humean skepticism, I guess human knowledge reached its maximum extent in 1748.
- HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
  > But if you understand the math of quantum mechanics, and you understand how the experiments relate to the math, then you understand how quantum mechanics works. Its not actually that complicated, its just weird. OK, but is that really understanding, or just an ability to crank the handle of the model and make a prediction? How should we interpret what is going on? What to make of observational wave function collapse, or long-distance quantum entanglement (which seems completely at odds with our understanding of space and time)?
  - pas 3y ago
    it's not black and white. we understand plenty! (eg. QED, semiconductors, lots of quantum optics, etc.) and then there are more murkier areas (strong forces, QCD, Higgs) and then there are the untamed beasts that eat their young and season it with Nobel laureates (fundamental questions, structure of the electron, SUSY, things beyond the standard model)
  - petsfed 3y ago
    I'm too much an instrumentalist to give you an unbiased answer. My view is that, as it pertains to any theory, the ability to make reasonably accurate predictions within a given region, and reasonably accurately describe the region where those predictions are correct is understanding. I don't believe our knowledge is complete, because the universe is effectively infinite, so there's room for effectively infinite combinations and permutations of phenomenon even within our understanding. But when we encounter something that contradicts our understanding, that doesn't mean we didn't understand anything we experienced before. It just means that our overall understanding was incomplete.

petsfed 3y ago

I agree with you on just about everything you wrote, except the following passage which neatly sets up the widespread conspiracy theories and erroneous religious beliefs that currently plague our civilization. >trying to explain things like quantum physics to the layman (as if scientists themselves really understand it) There's this common misconception that physicists somehow don't understand quantum mechanics. The problem with quantum mechanics (and a whole host of other experimentally-supported theories) is that they describe things so completely removed from our everyday experience (and indeed, occur in regimes that human beings have never experienced even indirectly until the last 100 or so years) that our everyday intuition is wrong every time. But if you understand the math of quantum mechanics, and you understand how the experiments relate to the math, then you understand how quantum mechanics works. Its not actually that complicated, its just weird. There are ~1900 PhDs in physics awarded every year, so certainly, tens of thousands of people across the world do understand how it works. Now, if you're going to quibble and say "do the scientists understand what spin really is?" then congratulations, you've just reinvented Humean skepticism, I guess human knowledge reached its maximum extent in 1748.

HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
> But if you understand the math of quantum mechanics, and you understand how the experiments relate to the math, then you understand how quantum mechanics works. Its not actually that complicated, its just weird. OK, but is that really understanding, or just an ability to crank the handle of the model and make a prediction? How should we interpret what is going on? What to make of observational wave function collapse, or long-distance quantum entanglement (which seems completely at odds with our understanding of space and time)?
- pas 3y ago
  it's not black and white. we understand plenty! (eg. QED, semiconductors, lots of quantum optics, etc.) and then there are more murkier areas (strong forces, QCD, Higgs) and then there are the untamed beasts that eat their young and season it with Nobel laureates (fundamental questions, structure of the electron, SUSY, things beyond the standard model)
- petsfed 3y ago
  I'm too much an instrumentalist to give you an unbiased answer. My view is that, as it pertains to any theory, the ability to make reasonably accurate predictions within a given region, and reasonably accurately describe the region where those predictions are correct is understanding. I don't believe our knowledge is complete, because the universe is effectively infinite, so there's room for effectively infinite combinations and permutations of phenomenon even within our understanding. But when we encounter something that contradicts our understanding, that doesn't mean we didn't understand anything we experienced before. It just means that our overall understanding was incomplete.