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

[hundreth]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

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.

Fair enough, though it seems like your viewership is lacking the prerequisites to distinguish between RFK's beliefs and truth. That's a concerning demographic to add new science skepticism towards.

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, hundreth said:

Fair enough, though it seems like your viewership is lacking the prerequisites to distinguish between RFK's beliefs and truth. That's a concerning demographic to add new science skepticism towards.

If Dave wants to debunk some bad RFK medicine claims, that's fine by me.

But he should be careful that he doesn't dismiss the entire alternative medicine field, since maninstream medicine is genuinely corrupt and limited.

Skepiticism and debunking is easily abused and goes too far. That's the isssue with Dave's style of videos. It leads to serious paradigm lock. People who watch too much Dave will become stage Orange for life.

Edited Thursday at 07:55 PM by Leo Gura

[hundreth]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If Dave wants to debunk some bad RFK medicine claims, that's fine by me.

But he should be careful that he doesn't dismiss the entire alternative medicine field, since maninstream medicine is genuinely corrupt and limited.

Skepiticism and debunking is easily abused and goes too far. That's the isssue with Dave's style of videos. It leads to serious paradigm lock. People who watch too much Dave will become stage Orange for life.

Understood. Yeah, I could totally see that danger.

For sure, there has to be room for alternative medicine and intuition outside of current scientific paradigms.

[zurew]

9 minutes ago, hundreth said:

It seems like you're pointing to scientists being close minded to new theories around physics. 

No I dont try to claim that, my claim was specifically aimed at people who incorrectly use the "but science works though" talking point to dismiss new potential theories (this point stands even if the theory in question is garbage - the point is not about how valid the theory is, it is whether the argument that used against it makes sense or not) or they use it  to dismiss any kind of criticism of science.

This is why I said that suggesting a new theory doesnt entail that science wont work and making a criticism of science (for example about methods) from that doesn't necessarily follow that science wont work (since you dont attack the  parts of science that gives you the ability to send a rocket to the moon).

I dont have any data on how most scientists react to new potential theories or how they engage with criticism of science, so I have no comment on that.

[hundreth]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

No I dont try to claim that, my claim was specifically aimed at people who incorrectly use the "but science works though" talking point to dismiss new potential theories (this point stands even if the theory in question is garbage - the point is not about how valid the theory is, it is whether the argument that used against it makes sense or not) or they use it  to dismiss any kind of criticism of science.

This is why I said that suggesting a new theory doesnt entail that science wont work and making a criticism of science (for example about methods) from that doesn't necessarily follow that science wont work (since you dont attack the  parts of science that gives you the ability to send a rocket to the moon).

I dont have any data on how most scientists react to new potential theories or how they engage with criticism of science, so I have no comment on that.

Here's a great example of how the community breaks down new theories from your favorite person, Dave. You can fast forward to 50:00 where he brings on Tim Nguyen, who peer reviewed his work to explain the theory and poke some holes.

The entire video is great though. These are typically the frauds who claim they have a new theory of everything. The Weinsteins and the Terrence Howards of the world.

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, zurew said:

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).

I had the same thought, but you know what? I don't think these people are actually being "not careful" with their rhetoric. This is mostly Dave virtue signalling to his audience and strengthening his pathos. He is just as not careful with his clickbaity titles about whatever suits his narrative for the day as anybody else.

Also, if we want to make some topics inherently off limits because of social risk, let's take Dave criticism of conservatism and religiosity. I don't imagine him being "careful with his rhetoric" there. If you're not "careful" about criticizing conservatism or religiosity, society will revert back to tribal warfare, crime and despotism. People will take drugs and drink themselves to death with unhinged hedonism, people will lose their meaning, connection, purpose, community, hope.

Nope. At some point you have to let the grown ups talk and not let the babies dictate the narrative.

Edited Friday at 04:02 AM by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

9 hours ago, hundreth said:

Here's a great example of how the community breaks down new theories from your favorite person, Dave. You can fast forward to 50:00 where he brings on Tim Nguyen, who peer reviewed his work to explain the theory and poke some holes.

The entire video is great though. These are typically the frauds who claim they have a new theory of everything. The Weinsteins and the Terrence Howards of the world.

Yeah, I have argued extensively against the favoritism of some of these people in other threads . 

I have a very low opinion on Bret Weinstein because of his incredibly misleading  and sometimes outright wrong takes on covid vaccines. I have low opinion on Terrence Howard (when it comes to him being a revolutionary math guy or scientist - but he is an okay actor). I have argued against Terrence Howard in other threads.

With respect to Eric Weinstein - I cant engage with his ideas in depth so I cant comment on that - but my general assumption is that people probably have a good reason to reject it.

9 hours ago, hundreth said:

from your favorite person, Dave.

I dont have a personal issue with Dave , I also have no issue with acknowledging and admitting the great effects of his work. I think his rigor is very good and a lot of people lack that.

I have issue with him being dismissive of certain things , or strawmanning certain things - and those things are mostly related to philosophy and not to science.

Edited Friday at 09:22 AM by zurew

[zurew]

5 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I had the same thought, but you know what? I don't think these people are actually being "not careful" with their rhetoric. This is mostly Dave virtue signalling to his audience and strengthening his pathos. He is just as not careful with his clickbaity titles about whatever suits his narrative for the day as anybody else.

Yeah I guess we would need to flesh out what we mean by "not being careful about one's rhetoric". By not being careful I would personally say not being clear about the conclusion you try to establish and you let the audience to fill the inference gap  (to make inferences for themselves from the premises that you lay out). Also qualifying your statements sometimes is probably good, if you know that a good chunk of your audience is prone to misinterpret your content in a particular way.

6 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Nope. At some point you have to let the grown ups talk and not let the babies dictate the narrative.

I think that certain people cant be "saved" and will misuse your content no matter what , and those people cant be persuaded - so catering to those people is definitely the wrong move. Those people will weaponize your arguments and statements no matter what.

Given that those people exist, is that alone a good argument to not have public talks and debates about certain topics? Probably not, only if there is a very good argument that can demonstrate that it has much more negative effects than good effects.

There are other groups though (saveable people), where doing some mitigation (that I listed above) can be more than enough to significantly lower the chance of them misinterpreting your statements . So I think it is fair to ask for that.

[Leo Gura]

You cannot distinguish science from philosophy. That is a fundamental epistemic error.

You guys should understand that by now.

Edited Friday at 07:00 PM by Leo Gura

[zurew]

53 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You cannot distinguish science from philosophy. That is a fundamental epistemic error

You can, its more like -  you cannot do science without a set of philosophical assumptions.

You probably agree with Thomas Kuhn's take on science, but agreeing with him doesn't prevent you from having a different definition for science and for philosophy.

Edited Friday at 07:56 PM by zurew

[Leo Gura]

If you attempt to do science without taking philosophy seriously you will misunderstand reality and your science will become retarded and corrupt.

Which is the current state of science.

Edited Friday at 08:34 PM by Leo Gura

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If you attempt to do science without taking philosophy seriously you will misunderstand reality and your science will become retarded.

Which is current state of science.

Would you advocate for the idea that scientists need to take at least 1  class on philosophy of science and one class on metaphysics?

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, zurew said:

Would you advocate for the idea that scientists need to take at least 1  class on philosophy of science and one class on metaphysics?

No. They need way more than that.

[hundreth]

25 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If you attempt to do science without taking philosophy seriously you will misunderstand reality and your science will become retarded and corrupt.

Which is the current state of science.

Why? The opposite seems like it could also be true. If you're subscribed to some ideology or specific philosophy you run the risk of searching for confirmations. This is what happened with Einstein and determinism. He was so ideologically captured by the philosophy of determinism, he spent half his life at odds with quantum physics. 

[Leo Gura]

45 minutes ago, hundreth said:

Why? The opposite seems like it could also be true. If you're subscribed to some ideology or specific philosophy you run the risk of searching for confirmations. This is what happened with Einstein and determinism. He was so ideologically captured by the philosophy of determinism, he spent half his life at odds with quantum physics. 

That is a function of insufficient philosophy and misuse of philosophy.

Obviously any field can be misused.

Philosophy doesn't gurantee truth. It's not enough to do philosophy, you must also do it well. Just like it's not enough to crunch numbers you must crunch the right numbers.

Philosophy is also badly corrupt, like most human things are. Corruption is a problem for philosophy as it is for science, as it is for spirituality.

Also, I will take Einstein over Prof Dave any day. Einstein was a serious intellect who used the power of philosophy to do groundbreaking science. What science has Dave done?

Edited Friday at 09:47 PM by Leo Gura

[zurew]

39 minutes ago, hundreth said:

Why? The opposite seems like it could also be true. If you're subscribed to some ideology or specific philosophy you run the risk of searching for confirmations. This is what happened with Einstein and determinism. He was so ideologically captured by the philosophy of determinism, he spent half his life at odds with quantum physics. 

The response to this is that its probably better to be aware of metaphysical assumptions than not. Now you might consciously choose certain metaphyiscal assumptions that might turn out to be wrong, but its still probably better to have an understanding of the debates around metaphysics than to unconsciously go with a particular set of metaphysical beliefs (where you are not even aware that those are beliefs, you just take them for granted).

There is a difference between the position of "after deeply thinking about metaphysics and after reviewing in depth the arguments around different metaphysical beliefs , I think I have very good reasons to think this set of metaphysical beliefs is true" vs the position of "I am clueless about metaphysical debates, I have 0 knowledge about metaphyiscs, and I unconsciously go with a set of metaphysical beliefs, where I am not even aware that those are actually beliefs).

Now there is a third question  - whether it is better to not engage with metaphysics at all vs just dipping your toe in metaphysics a little bit, without seriously engaging with it. It might be the case, that engaging with it just a little bit is worse than not engaging with it at all, because you will mindfuck yourself and you will adopt a set of metaphysical beliefs for bad reasons (this is might be what you tried to argue using Einstein).

 

But I think you are right, in that there can be made an opposite case as well, but that case is little bit different from the way you outlined it. That case is that some philosophers tend to make false claims about science, because they often lack the scientific knowledge and other times they lack rigor.

Some philosophers also like to make empirical claims and then not back those up with any empirical evidence - they like to purely rely on their armchair.

Edited Friday at 09:42 PM by zurew

[hundreth]

46 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That is a function of insufficient philosophy and misuse of philosophy.

Obviously any field can be misused.

Philosophy doesn't gurantee truth. It's not enough to do philosophy, you must also do it well. Just like it's not enough to crunch numbers you must crunch the right numbers.

Philosophy is also badly corrupt, like most human things are. Corruption is a problem for philosophy as it is for science, as it is for spirituality.

Also, I will take Einstein over Prof Dave any day. Einstein was a serious intellect who used the power of philosophy to do groundbreaking science. What science has Dave done?

Right, so if you have the "right" philosophy then you can have the "right" science? That doesn't sound like science, it sounds like confirmation bias.

Why not just follow wherever the truth leads?

But yeah, I guess that is a philosophy of science in itself which I believe most scientists aspire to in principal, to be an unbiased observer. In practice, it probably isn't so simple. In that sense self awareness becomes paramount.

[zurew]

1 hour ago, hundreth said:

Why not just follow wherever the truth leads?

But yeah, I guess that is a philosophy of science in itself which I believe most scientists aspire to in principal, to be an unbiased observer. In practice, it probably isn't so simple. In that sense self awareness becomes paramount.

Because you dont just follow wherever the truth leads, and the term of being an unbiased observer is often times meaningless.

The idea that you can just passively observe things  - thats in and of itself rests on certain metaphysical assumptions.

Edited Friday at 11:50 PM by zurew

[Leo Gura]

47 minutes ago, hundreth said:

Then you can have the "right" science?

Of course. All science assumes right vs wrong science. Otherwise you're just making shit up.

The point of experiment is to distinguish right from wrong.

Quote

Why not just follow wherever the truth leads?

Truth leads to doing philosophy.

You can't even know what truth is, or why it matters, without philosophy.

Edited Friday at 11:00 PM by Leo Gura

[Basman]

On 08/11/2024 at 8:55 AM, Sea said:

I think these complaints come from people having a higher expectation for academic research jobs than they do for industry jobs. As if academia is supposed to be some "pure" pursuit of knowledge.

It sounds like academia has bullshit just like any other job. Scientists act like salespeople with their research proposals? Okay, the corporate world is all about sales as well. Aside from actual salespeople, anyone working in industry who has an idea will have to convince their boss/coworkers of the validity of their idea.

If scientists were allowed to research whatever they wanted without the "sales" part, people would also be complaining about research funding going to waste. So what's the alternative?

No kidding. There's obviously an incentive structure interfering such that you can't have a pure pursuit of knowledge. That takes resources which you have to get from someone, who naturally wants a return on investment.

The conflict between utility and pure learning is a longstanding one in academia. In a sense it was way more pure when only the elite attended higher education. There was less of a structural survival bias. They where learning and doing research just because they where bored essentially.

Edited Friday at 11:46 PM by Basman