5 ms·
That's the best part about science.
by ThrowawayTestr 2mo ago
That's the best part about science.
- pavel_lishin 2mo agoI remember reading the Three Body Problem, and thinking to myself: this is implausible. If scientists started getting weird results, they'd be thrilled, not suicidal!
- an0malous 2mo agoThe history of scientific revolutions does not support this view
- pavel_lishin 2mo agoHow do you mean? I cannot remember any particular scientific revolution where scientists were suicidal, or even particularly crestfallen. Quantum Mechanics is the closest thing I can think of, where Einstein famously refused to accept some of the implications, and where scientists had great disagreements about things like the Copenhagen interpretation and what it means for the actual nature of reality - but I don't think any of them were sad about it.
- ceejayoz 2mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall had to drink a beaker of Helicobacter pylori because no one would believe it caused ulcers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis wound up in an insane asylum for suggesting surgeons should wash their hands. Scientists get hidebound just like the rest of us, at times.
- pton_xd 2mo ago> wound up in an insane asylum for suggesting surgeons should wash their hands. Was rejected and mocked by the medical community for his idea, developed a drinking problem and eventually committed to an asylum by his colleagues after having a nervous breakdown. While in the asylum he was beaten by the guards and died from a wound infection ... yikes!!
- glenstein 2mo agoThose are definitely unfortunate examples and I can see how those environments pushed them to their limits. But if we're talking large-scale systematic thinking about what kind of data would be necessary to show that there's such a thing as a typical, characteristic civilization scale negative reaction to scientific revolutions, these don't demonstrate that this is the usual case. Obviously they're important in their own right. But also the book doesn't suggest that scientists going missing was just a function of humanity's customary response to scientific progress. In the book, it's a very intentional sabotage campaign.
- applfanboysbgon 2mo agoThe point being made is about the general reaction to weird results. The original supposition was that it would be implausible for scientists at large to have an adverse reaction to results that defied their current worldview. Given that we have seen this play out, there is in fact nothing implausible about it at all. The specifics (proton-scale supercomputers sabotaging scientific experiments by altering the outcomes into incoherent results, the adverse reaction being suicide) aren't important here, because that's obviously the realm of fiction -- we don't need an actual instance of scientists committing suicide to suggest that it's plausible, because we don't have an actual instance of proton-scale supercomputers sabotaging results[1]. We just need to acknowledge that adverse reactions to unexpected results do happen, so plausibly in a fictional story if you have very unexpected results then your scientists could have very adverse reactions as well. [1] That we know of.
- glenstein 2mo ago>Given that we have seen this play out We saw two examples, definitely unfortunate for what they were but well short of a built in civilization level reaction to scientific progress writ large. I don't think there's a single by and large way that people react to scientific revolutions, negative or otherwise. Feels like it depends on a combination of how it impacts most powerful stakeholders, things about culture, and things about the zeitgeist of a particular moment. >we don't need an actual instance of scientists committing suicide to suggest that it's plausible, because we don't have an actual instance of proton-scale supercomputers sabotaging results Right, the specifics of the science fiction don't matter here. And plausibility counts for something though it's a dramatically lower threshold. And the person above who is appealing to scientific revolutions writ large seem to be attempting a general level inference to human reaction to scientific revolutions, which is a huge inference to make on the back of a pair of one-off examples. Possibility counts for something, but I would say it only goes as far as explaining contingencies of particular circumstances and doesn't explain trends, and what happens within the fiction of the book is a trend, and it's explained by a sabotage campaign rather than by an appeal to the stresses of day-to-day science.
- onraglanroad 2mo agoBoth examples from medicine rather than physics. Can you give an example from physics? Preferably from the last century or two?
- ceejayoz 2mo agoThe parent post said scientists; medicine is something I've more knowledge of. You can carry the goalposts yourself, if you wanna move them around! (The parent post also already mentions Einstein on quantum physics.)
- onraglanroad 2mo agoI've just moved the goalposts back to the subject of the article. Treating all sciences as the same seems like an error.
- somenameforme 2mo agoI'm not sure about self harm or whatever, but Planck's Principle [1] was not stated without cause: 'Science progresses one funeral at a time.' And that was a quote from an outsized figure during the golden age of physics. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_principle
- leoc 2mo agoNeither Richard Feynman nor the quantum-physics community in general reacted very well to the first efforts to test Bell's theorem experimentally, at first: https://web.archive.org/web/20250723224559/https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0508/0508180.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20250723224559/https://arxiv.org... .
- stonedivot 2mo agoThe person you replied to was clearly asking of examples where some large paradigm shift caused large scale instances of suicidal thoughts, self harm, or otherwise, as a direct result of these new ideas. Providing two cases is, first of all, certainly not anything like "large scale". Second, these two cases are in complete and total isolation of each other, so not evidence of people getting riled up over the same new idea. And third, these seem like extreme reactions to people not believe their OWN ideas, not reactions to other scientists presenting new ideas. What do you think you've proven with these links?
- glenstein 2mo agoSomeone who gets it! This whole branch of comments is like a comedy of errors of distractedness in multiple directions. The wrong theory, dramatically inadequate evidence in support of that theory, and a lack of applicability of that theory to the book even if it were true. The book explains it by a specific and intentional campaign of harassment and sabotage (and worse) aimed at scientists. Terrifying hallucinations, death threats, and violent sabotage by a group of domestic collaborators. It's not just scientists getting bummed out by not having agreeable data. And for that matter you would think scientific revolutions, which to some degree are about how you struggle in response to the limits of an old theory that can't explain data, are nevertheless more properly understood as triumphant moments of progress that validate the practice of science, not failures and dead ends the scientists in the book experience.
- ben_w 2mo agoOne of the boldest chapter one introductions I've ever seen comes to mind: Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study statistical mechanics. - "States of Matter", David L. Goodstein, https://archive.org/details/statesofmatter0000good_e2n5/page/n15/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/statesofmatter0000good_e2n5/page...
- Ar-Curunir 2mo agoIt is, of course, meant to be taken in a humorous tone here, despite the morbid subject.
- traes 2mo agoA very interesting story that's worth reading up on. "Natural philosophers" of the day refused to accept the idea of a particle too small to directly observe on purely philosophical grounds. They essentially bullied him out of the field for championing the idea of the atom, despite his math yielding numerous correct results. They fruitlessly pursued the idea of energetics instead. (One of the many instances of die hard philosophers playing the villain in physics history. See also why Emmy Noether wasn't given a professorship despite a letter of recommendation from Albert Einstein.) This makes it perhaps not a particularly good example of the phenomena being discussed, as he was suicidal not because of what he had discovered, but because no one believed what he had discovered.
- ben_w 2mo ago> See also why Emmy Noether wasn't given a professorship despite a letter of recommendation from Albert Einstein I thought that was sexism rather than philosophers? This was the same era and place that mostly ignored Bertha Benz. (Or did you mean after moving to the USA?)
- traes 2mo agoIt was indeed sexism, but it was not sexism from the math department, who very much wanted to hire her. In fact, the Chair of Mathematics David Hilbert (of Hilbert space fame) personally recruited her.
- jpk 2mo agoYeah. In principal, scientists should be excited by weird results. In practice, though, humans are complex creatures with intellectual and emotional inertia. There's an understandable element of dread when you realize your life's work finds itself on shaky ground.
- tgarrett 2mo agoI'm a plasma physicist, and personally I love weird results - new mysteries to solve! That said, there are a wide range of personality types out there. And I would also be extremely surprised if the correct solution to some particular weird result was, for instance, that the Maxwell equations are broken for that regime (other than expected quantum corrections, e.g. the Schwinger limit).
- ck2 2mo agowell maybe depends how fundamental if objects you put on a table started falling through the floor it would be a bit stressful lol but Dr. Becky gets really excited about all the various "crisis in cosmology" because she knows new science/knowledge will emerge from solving those questions and you remind me there's another season coming up in that series, can't wait "Is he still in the grandmother’s house? We would like to speak to him."
- Diogenesian 2mo agoI believe the alien scientists were depressed by the guaranteed collapse of their civilization, not the difficulty of certain differential equations. So it's more like a doctor getting weird results while working on a cure for a pandemic. Edit: oops, see the reply below... and my grumpy response. I seriously forgot about that entire plot point.
- glenstein 2mo agoI'm pretty sure they're referring to scientists on Earth. Edit: Though I agree that alien scientists of Tri-Solaris probably lead more depressing lives than their counterparts on earth I don't know if this series is yet considered far enough in the past that we don't have to worry about spoiler warnings (I feel like the house rules about this apply differently to books than to movies), but I will just say that one of the most fascinating and mind-bending considerations in the book is the idea that some civilizations progress linearly and some progress exponentially, and how mind bending it is to have to plan ahead for exponential advances.
- Diogenesian 2mo agoHmm, fair enough - I checked Wikipedia. My mind completely erased the "sophon" bit or whatever it was called, it just got erased again. Not a fan of that particular fairy dust. I thought they were referring to the inability of the aliens to make an accurate calendar.
- glenstein 2mo agoThat's actually a great example for what it is. If I were a scientist I probably wouldn't be reacting with "yay science" to every next failure that destroys civilization, even if notionally those are building up the body of data that could eventually lead to success.
- pavel_lishin 2mo agoNo, I was referring to the human scientists' reaction to the sophons' interference. But I thought that the Trisolarians' inability to predict their planets' path also seemed weird. Yes, the three-body problem isn't analytically solvable, but you can brute force it, and I would imagine that a species that is capable of creating sophons and starships with hulls made out of the Strong-force could calculate their planet's trajectory for the next thousand years without too many problems. (It would be academic, anyway - if you can build that kind of technology, why do you even need planets?) And I also hated the sophons.
- black6 2mo agoThey were getting inconsistent results, not just weird ones. However I agree that suicide probably wouldn't be where they would end up.
- dguest 2mo agoI seem to remember something about the scientist being distraught because physics didn't make sense, not because she was having trouble getting clean data. That also stuck with me as weird: there are any number of places you could sabotage a precision physics experiment by injecting tiny amounts of noise, which would drive the scientists to think they were bad scientists. Instead they thought science was broken. As someone who has looked for inconsistencies with the Standard Model for a while now, and seen every measurement land bang-on the prediction, I can say that I would love any deviation that said our existing theories are broken. And sure, crank up the detector noise and we'd be sad, but ask any grad student: having your apparatus suddenly spit out garbage data is just an average day. I've known plenty of scientists with psychological problems but it's never coming from their data.
- ASalazarMX 2mo ago> I've known plenty of scientists with psychological problems but it's never coming from their data. I want to read a spinoff of the Three-Body Problem with this premise.
- glenstein 2mo ago>That also stuck with me as weird: there are any number of places you could sabotage a precision physics experiment by injecting tiny amounts of noise, which would drive the scientists to think they were bad scientists. Instead they thought science was broken. I think in the context of the book, the specific means of sabotage was something close to impossible to figure out, so I can see the despair of checking every conceivable explanation, coming up empty, and making an inference about reality itself. And it wasn't a kind of peripheral, controllable amount of noise, it was a complete global sabotage of all particle physics, on a scale that amounted to a global catastrophe rather than just another blip in the daily grind. I think one thing that really hooked me on the book series in the beginning was being able to appreciate the kind of cosmic despair one scientist was sharing during the pool table conversation, because thinking big about meaning and order in the universe, and how important the universes' intelligibility is to our relationship with it, informed by data, is a synthesis of things that really matter to me as a reader - taking the intersection of science and meaning seriously. I don't think that would be enough for plausibly explaining particular scientists offing themselves, but the psychology of someone to whom that kind of question matters that much, which is very much the heart and soul of what drives my interest in non-fiction reading, seems tragically underrepresented as a driving motivation in fiction which I think is terribly unfortunate. But sci-fi sometimes cares about it, and sometimes a lot.
- Hikikomori 2mo agoIn the book they get different results on all tests they run, consistency is gone, that is something else.
- ASalazarMX 2mo agoSpecially because only particle physics suddenly became inconsistent. I can see scientists fruitlessly obsessing with finding why the universe was toying with them, but suicide? OK, they were also seeing intent with individualized hallucinations, and computer interference, but IIRC those messages asked them to to stop particle physics, not to off themselves. They could change fields and live on.
- root_axis 2mo ago[dead]
- storywatch 2mo agoIt's good for the world but terrible for the practitioners in academia. Imagine you are in your last year of your PhD and then something new comes out and completely invalidates/obsoletes your results. Cough natural language processing PhDs during COVID when GPT-3 came around..
- radicaldreamer 2mo agoThis happens in biology all the time. PHDs will spend years mastering some intricate multi-day long procedure to do some thing and a new discovery will obviate the need for the procedure completely.
- randomImmigrant 2mo agoPreach. The way out is to find truly basic problems that you’re attacking at a fundamental level. That rarely gets funded. And even more rarely handed off to grad students. In a sense the failure of a bunch of grad students is priced in to the way science is done. Which makes it so perverse their lives and careers depend on success as newcomers.
- tansey 2mo agoAcademic here. It's actually great for us. You're usually the first to see the implications for your niche area and have a chance to get a hot paper out rather than a moderately impactful one.
- gertop 2mo agoThe perspective changes if you're in your last year of PhD as GP said. I'm sure the system is built in a way that you'll still graduate because your supervisor knows this is about learning how to conduct research and not about being right. But it's likely still soul crushing to come out with no published paper (unless you still publish knowing you're wrong, which in some cases might be valuable).
- touisteur 2mo ago
- qsera 2mo agoI am a bit sick of this narrative. That science can make mistakes is in no shape or form, one of its strengths. It is a weakness of the process. The lipstick putting can be exposed by simply asking if you would not prefer a version of the scientific method that is never wrong.
- pmontra 2mo agoMathematicians proof theorems so they are always correct. Physicists don't have that privilege.
- qsera 2mo ago>Physicists don't have that privilege. Then don't claim it as a strength!
- exmadscientist 2mo agoCelebrating the mistakes is, as you're saying, perhaps a bit too far. But mistakes will happen, it's just the nature of the world. That makes developing a robust error correction mentality something that genuinely is worth celebrating.
- jibal 2mo agoNo one celebrates the mistakes ... what an absurd strawman (qsera's). Rather we celebrate the scientific method that finds and corrects mistakes, as you say.
- qsera 2mo agoYour "scientific method" can only correct the "mistakes" as long as economics allows it. A wrong belief held "scientifically" will go on and on if there is sufficient economic incentives to make it go on....And it is the "true believers" of science that provides such economic incentives..! So much for celebration! Sure this "Muon mystery" that no one cares about financially could be corrected without much effort. May be you should praise the gods of economics to make changes that are in the best interests of humanity possible..