Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The contrarian physics podcast subculture

timothynguyen.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 269 posts

Re: The contrarian physics podcast subculture

#151

Post by dawnofdusk »

WhitneyLand wrote: post #96
gwd wrote: post #82

There's something strange about this whole narrative. I don't know anything about the science or personalities at all (except for having seen a number of Hosselfelder's videos, and what she said in her recent video about Weinstein). But here in this blog post we have story after story of people who seemed really enthusiastic about talking to Nguyen, and then later ghosted him or changed the topic of conversation or s…

This is supposed to be about science. Tim is the only side willing to publish papers and let them be peer reviewed. He’s also the only one willing to engage on the merits of the debate. Eric has/will not.

Agree. Science communicators should stick to talking about well-established or at least peer reviewed results. They do not need to be peddling fringe crackpottery. I don't think Tim's prose is magnificent, but the work speaks for itself: he wrote a serious technical document which stands alone with no response. Serious, credentialed physicists should platform these types and not grifters.

Re: The contrarian physics podcast subculture

#152

Post by mc32 »

cycomanic wrote: post #125
mc32 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand "establishment" science get their hairs up when she criticizes them, so there is that. She has had valid criticisms of the industry -and it is an entrenched industry like others. Basically the momentum that keeps something going beyond its usefulness but keeping it going keeps the money rolling in. I admire her willingness to make those people irked even though it brings flak along with it.

Yes very admirable to dishonestly misrepresent scientific progress, and making millions by accusing scientists to steal public money by working on things that she calls bullshit (based on her misrepresentation).

I think it's admirable that she wants to avoid government waste and boondoggles. Of course, lots of science careers depend on doing things that get nowhere. She favors science that results in tangible or discernable results instead of waste like the next super duper McCollider face.

Re: The contrarian physics podcast subculture

#153

Post by shermantanktop »

m_fayer wrote: post #109
shermantanktop wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By default, people have moral agency for what they do. Exceptions exist, of course, but “I wanted to make more money” is not one of them.

Actually, taking someone’s livelihood hostage is a great and time-proven way to rob initially decent people of their moral agency. The case studies are everywhere.

Do they lose moral agency? Having practical reasons to take an action is not the same as ceding moral agency.

We are not perfect creatures and sometimes do immoral things, for various reasons. But we did those things, nobody else did them.

That also suggests a practical guideline: whatever your rationale for taking action, anticipate living with that rationale for years and years. If you can’t see it looking the same 10 years from now, perhaps that is a strong clue.

Re: The contrarian physics podcast subculture

#154

Post by layer8 »

dustingetz wrote: post #74
cycomanic wrote: post #46

I have written previously about Sabine. I think it's fascinating to follow her trajectory. Initially I quite liked her show and my impression was that it gave valuable insights and critique of some branches of modern theoretical physics. At some point I noticed that her shows were starting to significantly diverge from her area of expertise and she was weighing in on much broader topics, something in her early shows…

i kinda think we should blame the youtube alg for this, the algs set incentives which shape behavior at scale, and it’s not like one can make a living doing actual physics these days

I submit Sean Carroll, and his podcast, for contrast.

Re: The contrarian physics podcast subculture

#155

Post by gdbsjjdn »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #113
gdbsjjdn wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I ... Uh... That's not what capitalism means. Sorry. We have plenty of capitalist countries w/ great healthcare, and social programs. Capitalism means "free market" + rules. If you're unhappy about something, fix that, don't throw the baby with the water.

I love that the two replies to this post are "capitalism isn't actually when wealth concentration" and "fascism actually isn't when right wing authoritarians take control by demonizing ethnic groups and imposing austerity".

Re: The contrarian physics podcast subculture

#156

Post by Aunche »

owebmaster wrote: post #117
Aunche wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should you expect her to have the same opinions about Musk and Bezos as you? Do you think that everyone who likes them have nothing of value to contribute?

I mean, Elon Musk? Yeah, someone still thinking great of Elon Musk might add a negative value

"might add a negative value" can be said about anyone. Many high profile engineers at SpaceX who revolutionized the industry have given high praise to Musk that is significantly more specific than what you'd expect from merely appeasing his ego.

Re: The contrarian physics podcast subculture

#157

Post by nobody9999 »

layer8 wrote: post #154
dustingetz wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i kinda think we should blame the youtube alg for this, the algs set incentives which shape behavior at scale, and it’s not like one can make a living doing actual physics these days

I submit Sean Carroll, and his podcast, for contrast.

I'd add PBS Space Time (Matt O'Dowd), Becky Smethurst and, to a lesser extent (more because she has a much broader remit that doesn't always focus on science -- that said, it's always insightful) Angela Collier.

Re: The contrarian physics podcast subculture

#158

Post by hermitcrab »

lepicz wrote: post #56

if anyone wants to go through it: https://geometricunity.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/Geometric... possibly recent video from Curt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AThFAxF7Mgw and that's like 95% of available documentation :)

I skimmed the 'paper'. It seems incredibly rambling and not any sort of coherent theory. However I graduated with an undergrad physics degree in 1987 and became a software engineer. So I am hardly super qualified to comment.

Once in every now and then a genius comes along and turns everything up side down. But there are 1000s of cranks and blowhards for every Einstein. I don't see anything to make me think Weinstein is an Einstein (the similarlity in name notwithstanding).

Re: The contrarian physics podcast subculture

#159

Post by xenotux »

cycomanic wrote: post #46

I have written previously about Sabine. I think it's fascinating to follow her trajectory. Initially I quite liked her show and my impression was that it gave valuable insights and critique of some branches of modern theoretical physics. At some point I noticed that her shows were starting to significantly diverge from her area of expertise and she was weighing in on much broader topics, something in her early shows…

> I think it's fascinating to follow her trajectory.

I think it's a lesson that we all consistently fail to apply to ourselves. It is so pervasive on social media - HN included - yet it's something we only attribute to others. Our hot takes on quantum physics, molecular biology, and economics are always reasonable and rooted in keen insights.

It happens for a reason. There's something deeply satisfying about being a contrarian: the implication that you're smarter than the masses. It's usually hard to be a contrarian in your primary field of expertise. It's a lot easier to be a contrarian in someone else's.

Re: The contrarian physics podcast subculture

#160

Post by MengerSponge »

pdonis wrote: post #127
krunck wrote: post #95

"Scientific disagreements are intricate matters that require the attention of highly trained experts. However, for laypersons to be able to make up their own minds on such issues, they have to rely on proxies for credibility such as persuasiveness and conviction. This is the vulnerability that contrarians exploit, as they are often skilled in crafting the optics and rhetoric to support their case." Touché.

> Scientific disagreements are intricate matters that require the attention of highly trained experts. Actually this isn't true, at least as far as anything the public needs to care about is concerned. There is a simple test the public can use for any scientific model: does it make accurate predictions, or not? You don't need to understand how a model works to test that. The model can use whatever intricate math it w…

While we try to make things accessible to the public, the determination of what is "good" is ultimately made by experts.

"The public" has a level of science literacy that is somewhat medieval (as in pre-Newtonian, and increasingly pre-germ theory), and while it's important to maintain political support, it's not reasonable to expect Joe Schmoe to be able to track the latest experimental results from CERN.

In fact, it's not reasonable to expect a very smart lay person to do the same. The problem is basically that the information that gets encoded in papers and public datasets is not spanning! There's a shocking amount of fiddly details that don't get transmitted for one reason or another. Say what you want about how things "should" be done, but that's how they are done. If you want things done differently you can encourage that behavior by rubbing cash on the problem.

Post reply on HN