Comments on physics and maths content and moderation

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by prometheus, Sep 27, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,175
    If the listener thinks the pronouncements are true, then it's knowledge. If the listener thinks the pronouncements are false, then the guy is an egotistical blowhard.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    How is that a test?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,175
    Exactly.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    So why have you engaged in psychological projection or a parody of it rather than engage the question?
     
  8. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,882
    That's dumb

    Admitting your own ignorance is the wise thing.
     
  9. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,175
    It's because it's a stupid saying. There isn't a negative correlation between ego and knowledge. I have a big ego, so does AN and Tach and Farsight and, yes, even Albert Einstein. He's just being a smug douchebag about it. Do you really think he spent so much energy trying to prove the QM guys wrong in the "humble pursuit of knowledge"?
     
  10. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,177
    Er, no, what they're doing is thinking of spacetime by analogy with space. Much of the formalism of Minkowski spacetime is inspired by and developed by analogy with geometry in normal space. Using an analogy, and using language indicating that one is thinking in terms of that analogy, does not mean one doesn't understand the difference.
     
  11. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801
    The more you learn, the more you realize how little you know…

     
  12. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,175
    While that's a nice quote written by a blogger, here's a counterpoint backed by science. The smarter you think you are, the less you think of other people's opinions; the smarter you ACTUALLY are, the better you are at apparently eliminating cognitive disconnects. Note, this does NOT mean that smarter people arrive at the TRUTH necessarily, but rather that they are better equipped to defend whatever conclusions they draw.

    I think about this study when I see supposedly educated people (most notably and recently Tach) twist themselves into an absolute pretzel trying to defend some indefensible falsehood. It is my opinion that the root cause of this is in defense of the EGO, and sometimes knowledge simply provides the ego with more weapons in defending itself.
     
  13. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    According to your logic above, if Farsight (John Duffel), Motor Daddy , Emil, Reality Check, agree with you, then you must be right.
     
  14. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Emil, you haven't answered the questions in post #20.
    Tach, as the thread shows, reading posts #19-#26, RJBeery was deliberately using irony to highlight the vacuity of the purported Einstein quote in post #19.
     
  15. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    RJ Beery also delved into his favorite passtime, attacking persons whose posts he doesn't understand.
     
  16. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Yeah, it's a standard behavior around here: someone tosses off some bit of wild speculation, and then responds to challenges by doubling down and trying to convince everyone - emphatically including themselves - that their wild speculations are actually carefully-considered, well-supported science. And then down the rabbit hole it goes.

    A related effect that has been scientifically confirmed recently (sorry, no reference handy) deals with how people (mis)estimate their own aptitude. People who are very proficient in some area (like, in the 90th percentile) tend to rate their skills as about average. This is hypothesized to occur because they are so apt that they do not appreciate how difficult the area really is, and simply assume that everyone else masters it as they have. Likewise, people with very low aptitude (the 20th percentile, or so) tend to vastly over-rate their own proficiency, and think that they are well above average. This occurs because their proficiency is so low that they do not even recognize all of the errors they are making.

    So, add it up: you start with someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. They then make the mistake of thinking they do know what they are talking about, because they are so out of touch that they don't even perceive how mistaken they are. This person then interacts with others from a presumptive position of false superiority. But since >80% of people they interact with actually know the stuff better than they do, they run into a lot of challenges, dismissals and observations that their grasp on the subject is pathetic. But since they think they are above-average, the ego kicks in and they respond by doubling down on their original errors and lashing out at those who challenge them.

    It is unclear whether there is a useful solution to that problem.
     
  17. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105

    Of course, the flip side of that is: "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance baffle 'em with BS!" I think in general the scientific community is a bunch of baffling BS artists. They obtain an education in the field, which entails learning how to baffle other people with the fine art of BS as they've been taught. How dare somebody come along and call BS when they see it!!! How dare someone come along and dismantle their world which they've spent so much time and money learning and hold to be true. (rolls eyes)
     
  18. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    But this increasingly hypothetical "somebody" would not be you.
     
  19. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    That is silly.

    Maybe if we are talking about the corporate-sponsored global warming skeptics or something, but as a general statement? Nah.

    That is also silly.
     
  20. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    Not half as silly as pretending you know what causes gravity with some BS model of warped space. Not half as silly as pretending that each object doesn't have their own velocity in space because you have no way of knowing that velocity. Nowhere close to as silly as pretending time didn't exist before the universe did. You can't even claim that, as the very statement that time didn't exist BEFORE the universe is a contradiction in and of itself.
     
  21. kaduseus melencolia I Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    213
    I just got a warning from prometheus in the aforementioned thread.
    So maybe he can explain exactly what was wrong with the post so everyone can see....
    The only assumption I can make is that prometheus believes his view of what gravity is the only view that can be accepted, so I'll ask him here to share this view with everyone, seeing how is is such a genius and is the only person in history to know what gravity actually is.
    (expecting him to say gravity is a curvature in spacetime)

    Being filled with bile, vinegar and piss is one thing, but placing constraints on forum discussion to this extent is retarded, what's the point in discussing anything on this forum if you can only discuss how wonderful currently accepted theory is, what's the point of the forum full stop if your only allowed to ask questions and be quoted wiki knowledge.

    Take a chill pill, you a god damn Scientologist or something?
    FUBAR
     
  22. Guest254 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,056
    In relation to quadraphonic's post, regarding incompetent people being poor judges of their own competence, i'd like to add something.

    I think it's very difficult, or even impossible, for laypeople to see just how good some scientists are, particularly those working in quantitative areas. Without understanding the intricate details of a person's area of research, it's very hard to judge just how hard the problems are that they happen to work on. I'm in the unfortunate position where I do understand a lot of other people's work, and it allows me to see the absolutely brilliant ideas and arguments that people are capable of producing. This is a very grounding experience, and it is a constant reminder of just how clever some people are.

    Often, I think laypeople believe the extent of a scientist's work is the watered down, analogy riddled, pop science explanation found in popular magazines. They don't realise that the real achievement is providing precise details with which one can move from a scientific arm wave to quantitative scientific statements, capable of producing accurate results.

    I believe that particularly incompetent people are in double trouble, in this respect. They already have an elevated opinion of their own competence, but they also have the false impression that the sum total of many profeesional scientists' contribution can be contained in a pop science arm wave. By producing their own, ill-informed arm wave, they think they might even be capable of doing a better job than the professionals.
     
  23. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801
    Right.
    Google: "More the knowledge lesser the Ego"

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page