This is such anti-intellectual cliche, and it’s a damn shame that a generation of Reddit pseudo-intellectuals parroting a Feynman quote has made it so wide spread.
You mean the post at the top? Or the comment you replied to? Either way I don’t really see the cliché.
Do you mean that something being non-falsifiable making it non-scientific is a cliché? That’s how science works: by having theories that can be differentiated with experiment.
Or, of the post, that multiverses contain every conceivable universe, then why anti-intellectual, when it’s just a silly joke?
The one I replied too. The habit of immediately and smugly going “It can’t be falsified and is therefore the same as the tooth-fairy!” to any ideas that class with their intuition is very much a well worn cliche of reddit style pseudo-intellectual “I fucking love science” types. Bonus points if it is falsifiable.
And yes, falsifiablity is a part of science, but this idea that science means going “if you don’t have a definite experiment that you can perform right now then the idea is stupid and wrong and you’re an idiot for even talking about it” is massively reductive at best and flat out wrong at worst, and if these people applied it in all cases - rather than just to the ones that their gut feeling is against - they’d be throwing out a huge amount of ideas that are most definitely science.
I mean jesus, imagine how arrogant you would have to be to discard all of the very detailed work extremely talented scientists have done in Quantum Foundations as being no different to believing in the tooth fairy.
I see. Thank you for your more explanatory reply. I must not hang out in the right circles, because I haven’t seen that enough to see it as a cliché. Perhaps the commenter was not dismissing multiverse theory because of a gut reaction, but because they’re fed up themselves with popular and un-falsifiable speculation being treated as science.
The incredible thing with these weird results is they are falsifiable - this “spooky action at a distance” that famous pre-redditor Albert dismissed as nonsense. Bell’s inequality, that lies at the heart of the trouble, is experimentally demonstrable.
But there’s a gap between that science and the interpretations of it. And maybe coming from they popular end, it’s easy to see the wilder speculations as nothing more than unprovable imagination.
But in the end, after re-writing much of my comment, I have to concede the point. I feel you’ve made a bit of a straw man to attack, but I agree a thing can seem unapproachable scientifically - non-falsifiable - but still be valid science. Even in this area, IIRC, part of the debate over the main quantum mechanics interpretations is quite whether they can be falsified or experimentally differentiated: and that itself takes time and logic and mathematics… it takes science!
I must not hang out in the right circles, because I haven’t seen that enough to see it as a cliché.
Possibly. Give it time I suppose
Perhaps the commenter was not dismissing multiverse theory because of a gut reaction, but because they’re fed up themselves with popular and un-falsifiable speculation being treated as science.
Perhaps, but you’d have a hard time tying to convince Princeton University that the the paper they gave Hugh Everett a PhD in Physics for is in fact “not science” and is in fact more like “the boogey man or the tooth fairy.” Or trying to convince the scientific community that people like Sean Carroll and David Deutsch and all the other physicists doing work in Quantum Foundations from a many worlds perspective aren’t scientists.
this “spooky action at a distance” that famous pre-redditor Albert dismissed as nonsense.
I’m sorry, but this is just straight up not true; Einstein absolutely did not dismiss entanglement as nonsense
But there’s a gap between that science and the interpretations of it.
Different “interpretations” (really they are different theories) absolutely have experimental differences. Some aren’t performable today, but if that is your criteria, then the Higgs Boson was like the tooth fairy for decades. But even beyond that some are performable, and have been performed, we have done test for dynamical collapse interpretations. Had they come back positive they would have falsified Many Worlds, ie. they are literally a form of falsification.
And maybe coming from they popular end, it’s easy to see the wilder speculations as nothing more than unprovable imagination.
And many worlds is not one of those wilder speculations that is nothing more than unprovable imaginations.
that itself takes time and logic and mathematics… it takes science!
Indeed, which means not dismissing and idea as nonsense without understanding it.
It’s not purely a wild, non-falsifiable idea. It comes from a theory to reconcile the very-much-falsifiable-but-not-falsified results of quantum mechanics. IIRC there are three main theories to interpret the results and all of them are down-and-out weird. Last I looked, one of them at least is controversial about whether or not it could (in principle) be experimentally differentiated from the others.
More or less. There’s a bit more nuance to it, and I was thinking particularly of the case of entangled particles at a distance rather than a self-interfering particle through a slit - but it probably resolves down to much the same mathematics.
Bell’s inequality proves the simple (‘realist’, above) option can’t be true, but the Copenhagen Interpretation is the most accepted interpretation of the alternative. Wikipedia lists three such interpretations, and IIRC “many worlds” is a separate one to the Copenhagen Interpretation. Though again, it’s a bit more nuanced. When I was studying, I think they basically assumed Copenhagen, though not treating that entirely as settled fact, and leaving other interpretations as niche.
Or, the conjecture of the multiverse, being non falsifiable, makes it as scientific as the boogie man or the tooth fairy. God of the gaps anyone?
This is such anti-intellectual cliche, and it’s a damn shame that a generation of Reddit pseudo-intellectuals parroting a Feynman quote has made it so wide spread.
I don’t come without credentials. I have a phd in physics.
I also don’t see any problem with Feynman’s standpoint. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkhBcLk_8f0
Which is the anti-intellectual cliché?
The post I replied to.
You mean the post at the top? Or the comment you replied to? Either way I don’t really see the cliché.
Do you mean that something being non-falsifiable making it non-scientific is a cliché? That’s how science works: by having theories that can be differentiated with experiment.
Or, of the post, that multiverses contain every conceivable universe, then why anti-intellectual, when it’s just a silly joke?
The one I replied too. The habit of immediately and smugly going “It can’t be falsified and is therefore the same as the tooth-fairy!” to any ideas that class with their intuition is very much a well worn cliche of reddit style pseudo-intellectual “I fucking love science” types. Bonus points if it is falsifiable.
And yes, falsifiablity is a part of science, but this idea that science means going “if you don’t have a definite experiment that you can perform right now then the idea is stupid and wrong and you’re an idiot for even talking about it” is massively reductive at best and flat out wrong at worst, and if these people applied it in all cases - rather than just to the ones that their gut feeling is against - they’d be throwing out a huge amount of ideas that are most definitely science.
I mean jesus, imagine how arrogant you would have to be to discard all of the very detailed work extremely talented scientists have done in Quantum Foundations as being no different to believing in the tooth fairy.
I see. Thank you for your more explanatory reply. I must not hang out in the right circles, because I haven’t seen that enough to see it as a cliché. Perhaps the commenter was not dismissing multiverse theory because of a gut reaction, but because they’re fed up themselves with popular and un-falsifiable speculation being treated as science.
The incredible thing with these weird results is they are falsifiable - this “spooky action at a distance” that famous pre-redditor Albert dismissed as nonsense. Bell’s inequality, that lies at the heart of the trouble, is experimentally demonstrable.
But there’s a gap between that science and the interpretations of it. And maybe coming from they popular end, it’s easy to see the wilder speculations as nothing more than unprovable imagination.
But in the end, after re-writing much of my comment, I have to concede the point. I feel you’ve made a bit of a straw man to attack, but I agree a thing can seem unapproachable scientifically - non-falsifiable - but still be valid science. Even in this area, IIRC, part of the debate over the main quantum mechanics interpretations is quite whether they can be falsified or experimentally differentiated: and that itself takes time and logic and mathematics… it takes science!
Possibly. Give it time I suppose
Perhaps, but you’d have a hard time tying to convince Princeton University that the the paper they gave Hugh Everett a PhD in Physics for is in fact “not science” and is in fact more like “the boogey man or the tooth fairy.” Or trying to convince the scientific community that people like Sean Carroll and David Deutsch and all the other physicists doing work in Quantum Foundations from a many worlds perspective aren’t scientists.
I’m sorry, but this is just straight up not true; Einstein absolutely did not dismiss entanglement as nonsense
Different “interpretations” (really they are different theories) absolutely have experimental differences. Some aren’t performable today, but if that is your criteria, then the Higgs Boson was like the tooth fairy for decades. But even beyond that some are performable, and have been performed, we have done test for dynamical collapse interpretations. Had they come back positive they would have falsified Many Worlds, ie. they are literally a form of falsification.
And many worlds is not one of those wilder speculations that is nothing more than unprovable imaginations.
Indeed, which means not dismissing and idea as nonsense without understanding it.
It’s not purely a wild, non-falsifiable idea. It comes from a theory to reconcile the very-much-falsifiable-but-not-falsified results of quantum mechanics. IIRC there are three main theories to interpret the results and all of them are down-and-out weird. Last I looked, one of them at least is controversial about whether or not it could (in principle) be experimentally differentiated from the others.
Is this what you are referring to?
Bell’s Theorem pretty well settles this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell’s_theorem
More or less. There’s a bit more nuance to it, and I was thinking particularly of the case of entangled particles at a distance rather than a self-interfering particle through a slit - but it probably resolves down to much the same mathematics.
Bell’s inequality proves the simple (‘realist’, above) option can’t be true, but the Copenhagen Interpretation is the most accepted interpretation of the alternative. Wikipedia lists three such interpretations, and IIRC “many worlds” is a separate one to the Copenhagen Interpretation. Though again, it’s a bit more nuanced. When I was studying, I think they basically assumed Copenhagen, though not treating that entirely as settled fact, and leaving other interpretations as niche.