61–70 of 196 posts
Quoted post unavailable.
I only have a master in (engineering) physics but working with statistical modeling and AI I’ve come to appreciate the “all models are wrong but some models are useful”-mindset, and I’ve started applying that to physical “laws” as well: I no longer see them as some divine truths waiting to be discovered, but more like models of the world that will always be wrong but sometimes useful. From that point of view what’s h…
Science and everything else humans do is social and cliquey. There's nothing that brings a group with some power over others together more than being able to agree that someone outside the group should be sidelined or punished.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And for "all" that we can throw at this kind of program it should be pointed out that perhaps nothing of interest might happen until it scales to energy levels of several of our suns with observations over a scale a little longer than human evolution .. still barely a scratch on the breadth and depth of the universe.
That's the crux with all kinds of fundamental research, isn't it? Everyone considers it a basically useless wild goose change until sometimes, something comes along that completely restructures our understanding of the universe. I wonder if people made the same argument against funding of research in nuclear fission...
His comment is therefore in agreement with Sabine, and not with yours.
> There have also been several instances in the past where particle physicists called senior people at my workplace to complain about me, probably in the hope to intimidate me or to get me fired You would think people as smart as particle physicists most probably are wouldn't go that low, but here we are.
IMO she does generally tend to suffer a bit of a victim complex.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know it's not an excuse but Sabine definitely "starts it". Just look at her wording in the blog post? She is always combative at the outset. She does not seem to have the kind of people skills required to harshly (and you can't deny it's harsh) and publicly criticise an entire field without upsetting everyone in that field. It takes skill to do that in a good way. Unfortunately for her, the only people who are real…
Well, I agree, unfortunately. Sabine is smart and knowledgeable, but when people try to engage with her in ways that push the boundaries of her knowledge, and especially when that may be some uncomfortable "unknown" position that we have no certainty on, Sabine will usually (in my observations) double down on her position and refuse to even entertain an outside idea, often in a derisive and short way that cuts off an…
Twitter seems so persistently corrosive and unhappiness-inducing. Why is it? The author's complaints are about other physicists' behaviors and attitudes to her writing, but it looks like much of it is specifically about Twitter interactions: about unhappy, defective people on Twitter (smart physicists, even) drawing other people into their miasma. These are people using Twitter with good intentions : smart people who…
It is hard to use twitter and not be drawn into negativity and conflict. I think that is mainly because it not only recommends tweets by people you follow. You quickly end up getting exposed to lots of content other people „liked“. Which more often than not is written by people with several mental illnesses, people in tough financial or social situations or successes like Nature papers, Conference acceptances and so…
This is a surprisingly bad headline for an article, giving absolutely no context about what I am supposed to take an interest in as a reader. This is about a physicist claiming she is being ostracised because she has professional views about particle physics that run counter to the accepted mainstream. She also explains the ideas behind her views (which comes down to "particle physics are no longer useful") and how s…
This comment is in bad faith. She says the problem is lack of progress since the 1970s. She claims that either: The theories produced since then have been falsified, OR that they have been made unfalsifiable (and she names SUSY as an example of the latter). She says that she's a particle physicist hoping for the field to make progress - but she doesn't think it will do that until it makes some big changes, which she suggests.
That book explains why geniuses in the history were not listened by the community and how to approach the concerns the author of the article has.
Quoted post unavailable.
how is slamming the lady in an HN comment any different? have you peer reviewed or criticised her in a professional manner? talk about hypocrisy
I'm not complaining about it being personal and unconstructive.