4 ms·

Really what's the difference. Either we can fit it in to our models or we have to change the models. It always bothers me that so many people in the scientific

Really what's the difference. Either we can fit it in to our models or we have to change the models. It always bothers me that so many people in the scientific community speak of our scientific models of the physical world as if they were truth itself. All models are flawed and only imitate reality by definition. We must accept that our models are only a glimpse of the real thing. We barely manage to grok our own planet let alone galaxies unfathomably beyond our reach yet we are consistently surprised when our models turn out to yet again be wrong. We know for a fact that our currently accepted physical models are flawed. To start with, we cannot fully reconcile gravity or "spooky action at a distance." The only reason our current models are useful, like any useful model, is that they are somewhat good at predicting a very limited set of future outcomes given measurable parameters. Why can't we admit that what we currently know only seems impressive to a few moderately advanced apes but in reality it is likely only tiny drop in the bucket compared to the knowledge our universe holds. All that said I'm very pro skepticism. Just because science is dumb does not mean every other random idea is valid. It's the common arogance of the scientific community that grates on my nerves. End rant.

tjradcliffe 12y ago
> Why can't we admit that what we currently know only seems impressive to a few moderately advanced apes but in reality it is likely only tiny drop in the bucket compared to the knowledge our universe holds. Because that would be to deny without any reason but empty speculation that what a small group of scientists have done in the past 300 years is a singularly impressive achievement, adding more to human understanding of the universe than far large groups have done over far longer spans of time. People don't know very much aren't impressed by what the discipline of publicly testing ideas by systematic observation, controlled experiment, and Bayesian inference has taught us about the world, and they radically under-estimate how much we know, instead comparing the vast and wonderous extent of our actual knowlege with their own fantasies of what might be known one day. I look back at the science of the 1800's and I'm impressed by how much they knew, how much they did. I expect scientists a century or two from now will look back and think the same of us, while the ignorant people of their day will dismiss the thoughts and judgements of scientists of that time as nothing much compared to the fantasies of the ignorant.
- jcoffland 12y ago
  > People don't know very much aren't impressed by what the discipline of publicly testing ideas by systematic observation, controlled experiment, and Bayesian inference has taught us about the world I believe there are many who don't know very much who are easily impressed. I consider myself pretty well informed about science. All you can say is that compared to humans of the past (and to other species that we know of) we know a lot and that our acquisition of knowledge is accelerating. To me, this is expected rather than awe inspiring. It's mainly impressive to us because our own minds are working at capacity and we were fairly recently huddling in caves in fear for our lives. Don't get me wrong, I'm rooting for team human, but we are very arrogant.
- jdjdps 12y ago
  Don't you think thinkers have always thought this at every point of time in history? The answer is yes they have. There have been large innaccuracies discovered in our models before. So what makes you think that it's so different this century? I'm not saying the these drives work, just that appearing to fundamentally violate our models makes it unlikely to be a real effect. But it isn't impossible, lets not be too self assured here. Pride makes you feel good, and bringing emotion into your reasoning is rarely a good thing where science is concerned.

tjradcliffe 12y ago

> Why can't we admit that what we currently know only seems impressive to a few moderately advanced apes but in reality it is likely only tiny drop in the bucket compared to the knowledge our universe holds. Because that would be to deny without any reason but empty speculation that what a small group of scientists have done in the past 300 years is a singularly impressive achievement, adding more to human understanding of the universe than far large groups have done over far longer spans of time. People don't know very much aren't impressed by what the discipline of publicly testing ideas by systematic observation, controlled experiment, and Bayesian inference has taught us about the world, and they radically under-estimate how much we know, instead comparing the vast and wonderous extent of our actual knowlege with their own fantasies of what might be known one day. I look back at the science of the 1800's and I'm impressed by how much they knew, how much they did. I expect scientists a century or two from now will look back and think the same of us, while the ignorant people of their day will dismiss the thoughts and judgements of scientists of that time as nothing much compared to the fantasies of the ignorant.

jcoffland 12y ago
> People don't know very much aren't impressed by what the discipline of publicly testing ideas by systematic observation, controlled experiment, and Bayesian inference has taught us about the world I believe there are many who don't know very much who are easily impressed. I consider myself pretty well informed about science. All you can say is that compared to humans of the past (and to other species that we know of) we know a lot and that our acquisition of knowledge is accelerating. To me, this is expected rather than awe inspiring. It's mainly impressive to us because our own minds are working at capacity and we were fairly recently huddling in caves in fear for our lives. Don't get me wrong, I'm rooting for team human, but we are very arrogant.
jdjdps 12y ago
Don't you think thinkers have always thought this at every point of time in history? The answer is yes they have. There have been large innaccuracies discovered in our models before. So what makes you think that it's so different this century? I'm not saying the these drives work, just that appearing to fundamentally violate our models makes it unlikely to be a real effect. But it isn't impossible, lets not be too self assured here. Pride makes you feel good, and bringing emotion into your reasoning is rarely a good thing where science is concerned.