"The crisis in physics is real: Science is failing" by Sabine Hossenfelder

[Rafael Thundercat]

Was just to make an advertisement of her Brilliant.org product. Hehe

Joking . I like her sense of humor, my quarks vibe with her quarks and my strings too. 

[zurew]

29 minutes ago, hundreth said:

She's portraying the current scientific methods as mostly "guessing math." That's not what's actually happening. Guessing math isn't the current method.

She did elaborate a little bit on it, but I think that it is a dishonest portray of science from her part. She shouldn't have characterized the method the way she did, but again, her point still stands (that she has an issue with that method and not just with the mischaracterized version of it) and there was no specific response addressing the effectiveness of that specific method  (other than bringing up higgs boson as an achievement for the last 50 years and then talking about achievements that are not foundations of physics related but sub discipline related)

There is no engagement with the boogeyman - which is that there is probably a big need for phil of science debates and talks. (and probably this is not just related to physics)

Edited Wednesday at 10:47 PM by zurew

[Socrates]

18 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

But I get the temptation to deconstruct Dave's shitty materialist arguments.

That would be awesome, Dave especially is so smug in his ignorance 

[Letho]

@Carl-Richard Chris is his own worst enemy given he could make so many allies of integrity if he just. Well anyone of an IQ above 120 will be able to easily workout the rest of that sentence. So that's apparently 90 IQ points to call Chris out on his ontological ostracism by privileged authoritarianism of the intellectual great ape manosphere.

I have nothing against Chris, have genuinely always liked and enjoyed him. He should be a guy I spend a lot of time learning from, however his just mirroring the ivory tower bs he says prevents his status growth with ivory tower victimhood. Chris if you're reading this with your 210 IQ to monitor all the best social media feedback on behavior, just go to Cambodia and checkout their smiles through their struggles. Cancel culture gives someone with an IQ of 120 an easy out, not 210. The mice running around in mazes with heightened IQ generally figure out those roadblocks; cut the good smart guy bs in he face of struggle, heal your wounds then show people what you can do right now for others rather than sitting on your laurels hanging your hat on your theory of everything thats obviously not inclusive of a theory out of your signal to noise ratio on all of the elitist roadblocks ahead of you that are just more reflective of emotional immaturity with or without the genuine truth of elitist noise. It's the biggest roadblock for people who actually figure out they're a mouse in a maze that was pre-made for them. They don't realise enough the short weight that complaining about preprogrammed social stratification has on actually focusing on solutions.

The social stratifications are about as true as our best laws of physics, but when I'm running up against the heat of the Cambodian sun or their tropical rainfall when trying to run from Ho Chi Minh to Phnom Penh I don't thump my fists against the establishment or curse 'Why God' at the sun, even though I certainly nearly had moments like this, I don't even have to figure out the next level of Calculus to make the necessary evolutionary adaptive curve to survive either the sun, rainfall or psychological fatigue. I've just got to de-escalate on my sense of entitlement which Chris is overloaded on, and begin to use the neural nostrils that give me the senses to smell my own creative brain tissue out of the juxtaposition of any analogous situation of not being able to either jump into the extreme cold or heat nor middle for survival, and begin to use my long whiskers to touch the walls blockades before hitting them and feel my way through the darkness.

Sorry Chris but what you're struggling with isn't a prepaved royal magical carpet laid before you to get you out of this mess, because by the sounds of things compared to the familial Cambodian smiles through the struggles they have, you were already blessed with, what you're struggling with is narcissism, and any of its potential grandiosity is hidden behind the covert narcissism of your victim narrative.

Chris, if God were to give a golden ticket out of the social experiment that is society to one of us mice it IS an IQ of 210 for Christ's sake, not a Lamborghini or even social status for so many millions of people that are encased within those mental prisons feeding them to be addicted to those what can be toxic normalisations that they're stuck in for the sheer fact that they DON'T have an IQ of 210, they're just smart enough to achieve those riches, even if it's only short term, and they're just dumb enough to stay imprisoned by the illusions that they then infect the next person with. I've learned a lot from you and I still will I'm sure some time in the future, however you must address the prisons created by your own psychology and seek a deeper internal spiritual revolution that teaches you to slowly develop a transcendent voice on the experimental prison that is modern society and it's masters. A more deeply layered internal masterhood is what you're lacking the strength of running down your own marathon path towards achieving of which is clouded by the secret need to be liked, admired and accepted by those of social status compared to the level of intrapersonal maturity that supersedes those desires in favor of interpersonal enlightenment that makes you act more interdependently and objectively, thereby allowing you to actually speak with extreme clarity on subjects like these which for now is presently your own smoke and mirrors that is a bad influence for comparably gifted people that are more naive outside of sharing your struggles minus the inspiration for your own personal breakthroughs outside of using your victim narratives as a weapon to disarm others with a shadow side that is just as authoritarian as your supposed oppressors in the face of critically thinking about you while also showing humility.

Best wishes Chris,

Michael

 

And @Leo Gura you have to watch your own tendencies here as well man that have their own unique flavour, we all do. We all for those smart enough can Intuit how things haven't socially gone your way entirely either (I.e. Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Owen Cook or whoever the name is). There's no shame in that. Most of us I imagine are all here because we all genuinely like you. We don't care if you're accepted or not accepted by these other people even though we understand at the same time you'd like it if a little more went your way underneath. Be your own light, transcend it as you know you can and be prudent in your own integrity here as we already know you know you want and can do and are learning to do better in your own way. Enjoy the coming year, stay true to your north and the path ahead you know puts you stronger with your light above this other passing noise that'll be insignificant by this time next year if you stay on it. Best. No need to reply mate.

[Leo Gura]

50 minutes ago, Letho said:

We all for those smart enough can Intuit how things haven't socially gone your way entirely either (I.e. Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Owen Cook or whoever the name is). There's no shame in that.

Such people were never doing the work I do.

Any resemblance is superficial.

I never expected such people to have a serious understanding of existence. Although I did hope they would at least not be foolish enough to endorse Trump.

But it is good to see peoples' true colors. Shows you who is doing serious work and who is not, in case that wasn't clear.

Edited Thursday at 05:32 AM by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

Prof Dave is good if one is stuck in Stage Blue. But once you get beyond Orange it starts to look silly.

Edited Thursday at 04:59 AM by Leo Gura

[zurew]

The general reply to the phil of science issues is that but "science works though" - look (insert a bunch of examples).

Yep, thats true but that often times doesn't really engage with the criticism that is made. Its a strawman, because the criticism isn't about denying the validity of certain lower level equations that are necessary for us to build certain techs , the criticism often times aimed at more abstract level problems and equations and formulas.

You can send a rocket to the moon using newtonian physics and you can do the same even if you accept general relativity. You accepting the validity of general relativity wont undermine you from sending rockets to the moon, but it will give you a more precise understanding of other things.

So the point is - multiple different kind of theories are comaptible with "science working".

Edited Thursday at 10:48 AM by zurew

[hundreth]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Prof Dave is good if one is stuck in Stage Blue. But once you get beyond Orange it starts to look silly.

I was wondering why given today's age you would be upset with someone like Prof Dave, and then I remembered he made a scathing video about you. I did think it was unfair for him to label you a cult leader and lump you in with Deepak Chopra and the like. In my opinion, he also caught you at your worst moments. You've since pulled back on your enthusiastic endorsement of everyone taking psychedelics and are now more careful. Maybe the criticism helped, maybe you got there on your own. I don't know.

Today, there is rampant science denialism in Blue, Orange, and Green stages. Blue for religious reasons, Orange for capitalist reasons (climate change, etc.), and Green for new age holistic snake oil reasons. Experts and intellectuals are hammered from all sides.

Now it's perfectly fine to point out that there are huge issues with academia, dogma within scientific communities, a materialist paradigm, etc etc. The issue is that these criticisms are fine when you understand science enough to see it within a spiritual context, but the vast majority of people are not there.

If the goal is to help as many as possible, we should be propping up science and experts as they are today. Science and experts are dismissed in favor of charlatans and snake oil salesmen. If you're frustrated about Trump getting elected, look no further than his blatant anti intellectual agendas. This brainwashing works.

 

4 hours ago, zurew said:

The general reply to the phil of science issues is that but "science works though" - look (insert a bunch of examples).

Yep, thats true but that often times doesn't really engage with the criticism that is made. Its a strawman, because the criticism isn't about denying the validity of certain lower level equations that are necessary for us to build certain techs , the criticism often times aimed at more abstract level problems and equations and formulas.

You can send a rocket to the moon using newtonian physics and you can do the same even if you accept general relativity. You accepting the validity of general relativity wont undermine you from sending rockets to the moon, but it will give you a more precise understanding of other things.

So the point is - multiple different kind of theories are comaptible with "science working".

I'm having a hard time understanding exactly what it is you're pointing to. Are you saying there are new theories being dismissed? Perhaps. But every time one of these comes up, physicists look into it and it is exposed as rubbish. Weinstein's geometric unity was complete vaporware predicated on a mathematical operator which he conveniently "forgot." Terrence Howard... I mean do I need to even say more? What exactly is it that you believe scientists should be doing?

What most people have a hard time understanding is that as knowledge in a field grows over time, it becomes more and more difficult to make breakthroughs in that field. This should be obvious, but it isn't.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, hundreth said:

I was wondering why given today's age you would be upset with someone like Prof Dave, and then I remembered he made a scathing video about you.

I never watched it.

I'm not upset with Dave. He simply embodies the abuses of science and epistemology as described in my series Deconstructing The Myth of Science. He misleads a lot of people into scientism and materialism. If you take Dave seriously you will never wake up.

Edited Thursday at 05:03 PM by Leo Gura

[Socrates]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Prof Dave is good if one is stuck in Stage Blue. But once you get beyond Orange it starts to look silly.

Dave's issue is that he thinks any criticism of science is from below, he doesn't understand the context that science can be criticized from above.

[hundreth]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I never watched it.

I'm not upset with Dave. He simply displays abuses of science and epistemology, as I described in my series Deconstructing The Myth of Science.

Feels like these teachings about deconstructing science are about a century ahead of its time. Right now most people need more faith in science, not less.

[Letho]

@Leo Gura yeah I got a multicultural Aussie perspective on this, so less investment. I see yours though as well. I'd view things at least slightly differently if they were all Australian. We each have contextual environmental limits in the ratio between personal bias vs serving what we genuinely believe the truth to be relative to the evolutionary heuristics of our present level of 'enlightenment' say. It'd be really interesting to sit each of them down and ask them the same questions across different environmental pressures in one sense, in another sense for my personal development right now in my life I'd rather just focus less on cultural narrative and more on generating my own individual personal life experiences that then are imbued with life lessons unique to me. You've got your own unique methodology for getting your life experiences and I think that's important for achieving just that, it puts us in a place where we can add a personal voice to the cultural conversation rather than running solely off second hand speech when it's not complementary to building one's own or worse third hand speech which is just the incomplete cultural narratives.

The thing about cultural narratives that a lot of us sometimes forget is that they're never complete because they're always at the very least slightly changing and evolving and because we can run the risk of perceiving them as first hand voices, it becomes like a dog chasing it's frustrated tail believing that once it finally reaches it, everything will feel complete. Until the sun rises again tomorrow and now you're defending against having your dick chopped off and fed to the alien mafia that escaped area 51 while you were sleeping the night before and you have no idea why you're having to defend your constitutional rights but X speaker says this and it seems like you should start thinking that too, and so goes the tail chasing until the next day it's something different, maybe your neighbour is now allowed to break and enter your property once but not twice, the absurdity repeats, the music only ever stops to test where you've landed at th final best but not to bring you final completion so you don't have to dance to try cultural absurdity anymore with aimless vocals at Plato's shadows on the wall of his cave. Peace.

[Leo Gura]

31 minutes ago, Socrates said:

Dave's issue is that he thinks any criticism of science is from below, he doesn't understand the context that science can be criticized from above.

Yup.

Dave uses the genuine ignorance of stage Blue pre-rationality to deny post-rationality.

Classic trap.

29 minutes ago, hundreth said:

Feels like these teachings about deconstructing science are about a century ahead of its time. Right now most people need more faith in science, not less.

My bias is that I don't cater to the masses. As far as the masses go, Dave has his function, which is why he is popular. But if you are here, you are interested in more than that.

Edited Thursday at 05:36 PM by Leo Gura

[zurew]

2 hours ago, hundreth said:

I'm having a hard time understanding exactly what it is you're pointing to. Are you saying there are new theories being dismissed? Perhaps. But every time one of these comes up, physicists look into it and it is exposed as rubbish. Weinstein's geometric unity was complete vaporware predicated on a mathematical operator which he conveniently "forgot." Terrence Howard... I mean do I need to even say more? What exactly is it that you believe scientists should be doing?

1) Im saying that Dave's attitude is irrational and dogmatic and sometimes doesn't make any sense. Especially his reply video to formscapes didnt make any sense. 

Formscapes provided very similar arguments to what Leo provided in his Myth of science series . He created a compact video where he brought facts about the replication crisis, he also gave a comprehensive argument about physics, he provided arguments on the limitations of certain ways of thinking about science and about the philosophy of science. 

Dave after seeing that video sperged the fuck out of his mind , made a bunch of accusations that he couldn't substantiate and provided 0 counter arguments to the issues that were brought up about the limitations and issues with philosophy of physics (inlcuding the assumed metaphysics and including the limiations of certain methods)

 

 

2)  Im also saying that the reply of "but science works though" doesn't engage with a specific type of criticism thats aimed at a more broad and more abstract things like "there havent been any significant physics breakthrough in the last 50 years ".

Attacking the foundations of physics doesnt entail that you need to reject some set of laws that will make science unfunctional to the point where we wont be able to build any tech anymore.

One can provide a new theory that is consistent with those more pragmatic set of laws, while also offering solutions to other challenges. (hence why I brought up the example about Newton and Einstein). And my point is that if Dave wants to reject a new theory, or if Dave wants to reply to the lack of breakthrough criticism - saying "but science works though" isn't gonna cut it, because that is completely unresponsive to those criticisms. - Btw this isn't just aimed against Dave, because other people have used the "but science works though" argument in a context where it doesn't make any sense.

 

 

3) " What exactly do you believe scientists should be doing? " I personally think they should re-examine their methods and have debates about what kind of methods they should  be using and they should collectively make a deep analysis on the effectiveness of their current methods and they should  find a good explanation for the replication crisis and find a good explanation for the lack of breakthroughs in physics.

They should also sometimes re-examine what science is and they should re-examine the set of exact principles and justifications that they want to use differentiate between pseudo science and science.

 

2 hours ago, hundreth said:

What most people have a hard time understanding is that as knowledge in a field grows over time, it becomes more and more difficult to make breakthroughs in that field. This should be obvious, but it isn't.

This is consistent with the proposition that 'we should re-examine our methods '.

The very fact that it is more and more difficult to make breakthroughs probably give some reason to be more sensitive to some change or to make a systemic analysis of all the mistakes and  failures - analysing all the instances where scientist were wrong and where their reasoning failed and where the theoretical predictions turned out to be false.

Edited Thursday at 05:53 PM by zurew

[zurew]

I think Dave's (be careful about your rhetoric, because you will fuel pseudoscience and science denialism) argument about scientist who criticise science has some merit  and it can be used as an argument in favour of not having public debates/talks about certain topics (because of the broader negative effects on the population and because people are not mature enough to engage with certain content without misinterpreting it or without being misled by it).

The question comes up - whether academia gives enough space and opportunity to academics where they can provide their criticism. And the follow up question is, whether academics are incentivised to not  provide criticism (inside academic settings) , because if thats the case, then its not a surprise that they will eventually air out their grievances on other platforms.

[hundreth]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

1) Im saying that Dave's attitude is irrational and dogmatic and sometimes doesn't make any sense. Especially his reply video to formscapes didnt make any sense. 

Formscapes provided very similar arguments to what Leo provided in his Myth of science series . He created a compact video where he brought facts about the replication crisis, he also gave a comprehensive argument about physics, he provided arguments on the limitations of certain ways of thinking about science and about the philosophy of science. 

Dave after seeing that video sperged the fuck out of his mind , made a bunch of accusations that he couldn't substantiate and provided 0 counter arguments to the issues that were brought up about the limitations and issues with philosophy of physics (inlcuding the assumed metaphysics and including the limiations of certain methods)

 

 

2)  Im also saying that the reply of "but science works though" doesn't engage with a specific type of criticism thats aimed at a more broad and more abstract things like "there havent been any significant physics breakthrough in the last 50 years ".

Attacking the foundations of physics doesnt entail that you need to reject some set of laws that will make science unfunctional to the point where we wont be able to build any tech anymore.

One can provide a new theory that is consistent with those more pragmatic set of laws, while also offering solutions to other challenges. (hence why I brought up the example about Newton and Einstein). And my point is that if Dave wants to reject a new theory, or if Dave wants to reply to the lack of breakthrough criticism - saying "but science works though" isn't gonna cut it, because that is completely unresponsive to those criticisms. - Btw this isn't just aimed against Dave, because other people have used the "but science works though" argument in a context where it doesn't make any sense.

 

 

3) " What exactly do you believe scientists should be doing? " I personally think they should re-examine their methods and have debates about what kind of methods they should  be using and they should collectively make a deep analysis on the effectiveness of their current methods and they should  find a good explanation for the replication crisis and find a good explanation for the lack of breakthroughs in physics.

They should also sometimes re-examine what science is and they should re-examine the set of exact principles and justifications that they want to use differentiate between pseudo science and science.

 

This is consistent with the proposition that 'we should re-examine our methods '.

The very fact that it is more and more difficult to make breakthroughs probably give some reason to be more sensitive to some change or to make a systemic analysis of all the mistakes and  failures - analysing all the instances where scientist were wrong and where their reasoning failed and where the theoretical predictions turned out to be false.

So in other words, you have some vague sense that something is wrong with science because there aren't enough breakthroughs for you. (Despite the fact that there are plenty.) The vibe is just off huh?

And you can't really articulate exactly what you'd like them to do, except "re-examine their methods" which means basically nothing. 

The way you speak about this stuff tells me you likely should be listening to more prof Dave honestly.

[zurew]

10 minutes ago, hundreth said:

So in other words, you have some vague sense that something is wrong with science because there aren't enough breakthroughs for you. (Despite the fact that there are plenty.) The vibe is just off huh?

Thats a very good faith summary of what I said. 

A+ level engagement right there.

Once you calm down a little bit and once  you are ready to engage in good faith - there are reasonable ways to  reconcile disagreements.

Tell me when you are ready.

Edited Thursday at 07:11 PM by zurew

[Leo Gura]

Dave's vibe is def off. Massive ego larping as "science".

[Reciprocality]

Dave has some impressive judgements and intuitions that he relies on to aggressively look for the behaviour that conforms to it, this is partially why his debunking videos gain so much views and that his skeptical audience praises it.

Dave is a an analyst of human intension behind human action, this is why he is a very efficient bully.

Dave positions himself as a top-dog, this identity of a top dog gives him much of the energy and focus sufficient to create these kinds of videos.

Dave's personality would easily be characterised as stage red on the spiral dynamics model, the man lives and breathes the heuristics that allows him to position himself as the strong guy which is confirmed by his exclusively confrontational and derogatory focus in the interactions in the comment sections under his debunking videos on his utube channel and the debunking videos themselves.

Dave's method for scientific knowledge is hardly different from his personality (a personality he naturally hides in presence with people he respects), anything can be taught from a motivation that hides elsewhere than in the taught insight and there may be several cases of this that you can remember, I am not suggesting that many don't have a confrontational side but it does not easily couple directly to their knowledge when that side of them is purely contextual. Dave has in many of his videos employed his knowledge of scientific models and theories as a positive instead of as a negational assertion, this implies the heuristical (or non-substantial) nature of the knowledge. (substantial knowledge implies sufficient topical similarity)

My claim that Daves scientific knowledge is not substantive but primarily heuristical can be further grounded on the principle that I pointed to above which is that the more one has acquired of substantial knowledge the more particular are the conditions necessary to retrieve them. Knowledge of scientific terminology and correlations that does not rely on a complex range of perception of real world referents are not post-dogmatic in the least and can instead be perfectly purposed for and congruent with manipulative, self centred or competitive use.

 

The pure science videos are very helpful, and Dave does a good job with these, but its positive contribution to the world is not knowledge but instead heuristics that makes acquisition and comparison of knowledge easier later.

[hundreth]

25 minutes ago, zurew said:

Thats a very good faith summary of what I said. 

A+ level engagement right there.

Once you calm down a little bit and once  you are ready to engage in good faith - there are reasonable ways to  reconcile disagreements.

Tell me when you are ready.

I'm calm man, it's just hard to remain serious when it seems like these criticisms are coming from an uninformed place. Let's try again.

Do you know who came up with the replication crisis? Scientists. Scientists who were reflecting on issues within their fields to try understand why this is happening. They came up with many explanations, which have now become mainstream terms such as p hacking and "publish or perish." So definitely, there are issues no doubt. 

But if anything, the industry pushes scientists too far towards making breakthroughs. This publish or perish mentality is predicated on scientists needing to stay relevant to receive more funding. We would have better science if they were allowed to *not* have breakthroughs and do their jobs. 

This has more to do with business and politics than it does with scientific methodology. When these researchers are forced into a corner where they need to produce a result or else, you're going to have more junk science bundled in there. Fortunately, when something isn't replicable it becomes obsolete very quickly in favor of new understandings. 

It seems like you're pointing to scientists being close minded to new theories around physics. Like I said earlier, there have been a few popular ones which are brought up like Weinstein's geometric unity. He never actually published his work for peer review because he knows it's BS. Despite that, physicists have reviewed it anyways and have explained why its BS. This happens time and time again. If there is a viable alternative, where is it? Do you have an example of an alternate theory which isn't being represented?