The contrarian physics podcast subculture

Post by griffzhowl » Fri, Aug 22, 2025, 7:41 AM UTC

mxmilkiib wrote: post #122

hermitcrab wrote: post #108

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Weinstein : "In April 2021, Weinstein self-published a paper on Geometric Unity and appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience to discuss it. In the paper, Weinstein stated that he was "not a physicist" and that the paper was a "work of entertainment"." It all seems very odd.

apparently that was for copyright reasons, as apparently Wheeler nicked some idea decades ago after pooh-poohing it broke also, probably an attempt at levity/bit of clowning (I really don't like Eric's politics, especially the essentialist sexism, aside from all the rest, but I'd like to see a good refutation to the Curt Jaimungal iceberg video - https://youtu.be/AThFAxF7Mgw - on the physics thing)

Post by spacechild1 » Fri, Aug 22, 2025, 9:13 AM UTC

tombert wrote: post #8

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #5

Sabine's early video's seemed pretty sincere, and had a lot of valid points. But later, I think the pressure of creating constant content, and moving into non-expert areas, has gotten just as pop-sci as anybody else. Still think she is on another level from Eric who will throw out any crazy idea he can if someone will listen.

Something I've noticed is people who are extremely talented in one field will sometimes think they're extremely talented in every field. I know a lot of engineers like that (and I'm certainly guilty of that kind of thinking sometimes though the jury is still out on if I'm extremely talented). I have no doubt at all that she understands her niche of physics better than most other humans on the planet, but that doesn't…

Post by dr_dshiv » Fri, Aug 22, 2025, 10:26 AM UTC

glenstein wrote: post #198

dr_dshiv wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there wasn’t a difference in categories at the time — yet, at the time, perpetual motion was still treated as impossible.

If the category didn't exist at the time, the example shouldn't have been volunteered as an example that fits our present day understanding of perpetual motion as understood by the U.S. patent office in the 20th century.

Post by griffzhowl » Fri, Aug 22, 2025, 10:56 AM UTC

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…

Post by m_fayer » Fri, Aug 22, 2025, 11:41 AM UTC

mlsu wrote: post #201

vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My observation is that anybody who engages a lot on social media is at a very high risk of losing their mind over time. They get caught up in these weird bubbles of constant controversy and group think bubbles . I have seen this with friends but also with more famous people. For content creators there is a lot of economic incentive. Real science is kind of boring and mundane while controversy is exciting and sells.

Social media is like a parasite for the brain that slowly drives a person insane. Posting or only consuming. In some sense, whenever I see someone with psychotic views (in any political, ideological, social / etc direction), it’s not even “their fault” — their mind was simply melted by technology. Touch grass.