4 ms·

I suspect that there are myriad counterexamples of this belief, and that it's not even testable. Perhaps one idea that he was involved in -- quantum mechanics -

I suspect that there are myriad counterexamples of this belief, and that it's not even testable. Perhaps one idea that he was involved in -- quantum mechanics -- encountered resistance because it had glaring problems that were not resolved with one killer test or theory, but the problems were gradually overshadowed by the empirical success of the program. Please don't turn this -- or any hypothesis -- into a "law" of how science works.

armchairhacker 2y ago
It's not a law. If human civilization goes extinct, no more "scientific truths" will be discovered. Or an authoritarian society could gain total control (perhaps with robotics), and for whatever reason, they decide to ban some fact and mandate that everyone be taught the lie. But scientific truths have a tendency to be adopted that falsehoods don't because truths are verified by other truths, whereas falsehoods contradict them. A lie can only be so large before it becomes self-contradictory, the truth is incomprehensibly large yet coherent. If quantum mechanics has problems, as we do more experiments, we'll encounter these problems more and more, until eventually they can no longer be overshadowed. I predict quantum mechanics will never be entirely thrown out, but it will end up as a simplified approximation of a more complex "true" model; which is still taught in schools and used wherever extra accuracy isn't needed, like classical mechanics is today. I think Max Planck's quote matters in practice too. In theory, you can discover a "scientific truth" and be recognized for it, but only long after your death, and only after someone re-discovered it (i.e. you didn't advance scientific knowledge at all). However, most people aren't particularly unique, which means that if you discover something, chances are others have discovered it, or are at least close enough that you can easily convince them. You may not be able to convince the dominant "in-group", but if your idea is obvious enough (which it probably is if it's true and you managed to discover it), you can form an "out-group", which will grow as the idea gets verified (by truths) far more often than contradicted (by lies, because there are less of the latter, since a lie can only be so large without being self-contradictory). Why do science in the first place? If your only goal is to predict something, you're doing it for yourself, so do "Science 1" and listen to others, but only to correct yourself. If your only goal is status, the truth doesn't matter to you, so do "Science 2" and make others happy. If your goal is to further scientific knowledge, I recommend you do both with preference for "Science 1": prioritize being correct, but explain your idea very well and make others happy when possible without sacrificing correctness (diplomacy). It's important to note that when you can't change the majority's factual belief, you should really evaluate your own, because usually in such cases you're the one whose wrong. But otherwise: when you can't change others beliefs, the next best thing is to (as much as possible) not care what they believe, even if they are the majority.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  >If quantum mechanics has problems, as we do more experiments, we'll encounter these problems more and more, u This is non sequitur. If you do more experiments, you'll encounter it. But if there were such a wrong theory that everyone insisted was correct, it's not necessarily the case that more experiments will occur. I can't do an experiment to invalidate... quantum mechanics is in a regime where anything less than hundreds of thousands of dollars does not even get you started (never mind the lacking expertise). It's also unlikely to be financially lucrative in the timespans that would entice an investor (especially one averse to pissing off the status quo, as most are). By doling out the grant money (or not) to those people who will preserve the status quo, one could let the false theory survive for decades or even centuries. We seem to have this mythology of science from a past era, where some maverick can just bust in and start embarrassing people with unignorable truths. If ever there was such a time it exists no more. The stakes have never been lower, trillions won't be lost if we get quantum mechanics wrong. Thousands won't die in a quantum mechanics accident that could have been avoided. The problems could persist indefinitely.
  - armchairhacker 2y ago
    It's true that a false theory can survive indefinitely, especially if it doesn't have real-world impact. Classical physics survived for centuries before being disproven by modern physics, because the differences are subtle except in extreme circumstances. Maybe quantum physics is accurate enough that the circumstances for non-negligible differences between it and "the truth" are so extreme, we never test them, therefore it's never disproven. However, right now people are spending large amounts of money to build quantum chips. They're not explicitly trying to disprove quantum physics, but implicitly testing it through their experiments. And if these tests suggest that quantum physics has fundamental issues, they'll investigate, at least so if they realize quantum chips are impossible, they stop spending money trying to build them.
    - whatshisface 2y ago
      Every transistor in every existing computer is designed on the basis of quantum mechanics because they're dealing with electrons and atoms.
SkyBelow 2y ago
Based on our understanding of human psychology, despite it being as incomplete as it is, it would seem reasonable to argue that this trend, if it does exist, would not be a binary rule but one whose strength depends upon numerous factors that coincide with how strong the evidence is, how many different experiments create evidence that aligns with the new theory, and how much better the new theory explains existing problems in the data. If the existing theory predicts results that are 50% off, and the new theory is 45% off in the other direction, then things aren't likely to be accepted. If it is instead 0.1% off, that makes a much stronger argument. The issue with rejecting the first case outright is that often the experiments themselves have imperfections, but those are much slower to work out and refine. When the new theory doesn't need the existing experiments to be refined, I would guess long term experts are much more likely to entertain it.
- nosianu 2y ago
  > depends upon numerous factors that coincide with how strong the evidence is Might I venture the guess that seeing tangible advantages for oneself when using that new theory is more important? If you adopt it, will you become one or more of more famous, more successful, able to advance your own work, become part of a more reputable group, etc.? If it is merely something that will not affect you, there is little or no incentive to change one's view.

armchairhacker 2y ago

It's not a law. If human civilization goes extinct, no more "scientific truths" will be discovered. Or an authoritarian society could gain total control (perhaps with robotics), and for whatever reason, they decide to ban some fact and mandate that everyone be taught the lie. But scientific truths have a tendency to be adopted that falsehoods don't because truths are verified by other truths, whereas falsehoods contradict them. A lie can only be so large before it becomes self-contradictory, the truth is incomprehensibly large yet coherent. If quantum mechanics has problems, as we do more experiments, we'll encounter these problems more and more, until eventually they can no longer be overshadowed. I predict quantum mechanics will never be entirely thrown out, but it will end up as a simplified approximation of a more complex "true" model; which is still taught in schools and used wherever extra accuracy isn't needed, like classical mechanics is today. I think Max Planck's quote matters in practice too. In theory, you can discover a "scientific truth" and be recognized for it, but only long after your death, and only after someone re-discovered it (i.e. you didn't advance scientific knowledge at all). However, most people aren't particularly unique, which means that if you discover something, chances are others have discovered it, or are at least close enough that you can easily convince them. You may not be able to convince the dominant "in-group", but if your idea is obvious enough (which it probably is if it's true and you managed to discover it), you can form an "out-group", which will grow as the idea gets verified (by truths) far more often than contradicted (by lies, because there are less of the latter, since a lie can only be so large without being self-contradictory). Why do science in the first place? If your only goal is to predict something, you're doing it for yourself, so do "Science 1" and listen to others, but only to correct yourself. If your only goal is status, the truth doesn't matter to you, so do "Science 2" and make others happy. If your goal is to further scientific knowledge, I recommend you do both with preference for "Science 1": prioritize being correct, but explain your idea very well and make others happy when possible without sacrificing correctness (diplomacy). It's important to note that when you can't change the majority's factual belief, you should really evaluate your own, because usually in such cases you're the one whose wrong. But otherwise: when you can't change others beliefs, the next best thing is to (as much as possible) not care what they believe, even if they are the majority.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
>If quantum mechanics has problems, as we do more experiments, we'll encounter these problems more and more, u This is non sequitur. If you do more experiments, you'll encounter it. But if there were such a wrong theory that everyone insisted was correct, it's not necessarily the case that more experiments will occur. I can't do an experiment to invalidate... quantum mechanics is in a regime where anything less than hundreds of thousands of dollars does not even get you started (never mind the lacking expertise). It's also unlikely to be financially lucrative in the timespans that would entice an investor (especially one averse to pissing off the status quo, as most are). By doling out the grant money (or not) to those people who will preserve the status quo, one could let the false theory survive for decades or even centuries. We seem to have this mythology of science from a past era, where some maverick can just bust in and start embarrassing people with unignorable truths. If ever there was such a time it exists no more. The stakes have never been lower, trillions won't be lost if we get quantum mechanics wrong. Thousands won't die in a quantum mechanics accident that could have been avoided. The problems could persist indefinitely.
- armchairhacker 2y ago
  It's true that a false theory can survive indefinitely, especially if it doesn't have real-world impact. Classical physics survived for centuries before being disproven by modern physics, because the differences are subtle except in extreme circumstances. Maybe quantum physics is accurate enough that the circumstances for non-negligible differences between it and "the truth" are so extreme, we never test them, therefore it's never disproven. However, right now people are spending large amounts of money to build quantum chips. They're not explicitly trying to disprove quantum physics, but implicitly testing it through their experiments. And if these tests suggest that quantum physics has fundamental issues, they'll investigate, at least so if they realize quantum chips are impossible, they stop spending money trying to build them.
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    Every transistor in every existing computer is designed on the basis of quantum mechanics because they're dealing with electrons and atoms.

SkyBelow 2y ago

Based on our understanding of human psychology, despite it being as incomplete as it is, it would seem reasonable to argue that this trend, if it does exist, would not be a binary rule but one whose strength depends upon numerous factors that coincide with how strong the evidence is, how many different experiments create evidence that aligns with the new theory, and how much better the new theory explains existing problems in the data. If the existing theory predicts results that are 50% off, and the new theory is 45% off in the other direction, then things aren't likely to be accepted. If it is instead 0.1% off, that makes a much stronger argument. The issue with rejecting the first case outright is that often the experiments themselves have imperfections, but those are much slower to work out and refine. When the new theory doesn't need the existing experiments to be refined, I would guess long term experts are much more likely to entertain it.

nosianu 2y ago
> depends upon numerous factors that coincide with how strong the evidence is Might I venture the guess that seeing tangible advantages for oneself when using that new theory is more important? If you adopt it, will you become one or more of more famous, more successful, able to advance your own work, become part of a more reputable group, etc.? If it is merely something that will not affect you, there is little or no incentive to change one's view.