Hacker News Reader

actually, having gotten a phd and attended many journal clubs, "seen his papers roundly critiqued on the merits at too many journal clubs to count" is as strong a point as anybody can make.

Journal clubs are vicious. Everybody's got their brains and knives out …

actually, having read what you wrote, saying that “journal clubs are vicious … everybody’s got their … knives out” undermines your argument by implying that even good papers will be “roundly critiqued” in that setting, making this about as weak a point as anybody can make.

—

on further reflection, what I do find to be a strong point but in favor of Loeb’s argument is the fact that it triggered the scientists who wrote this comment and its grandparent to underscore the point of the article by more or less heaping scorn on the author, listing their own credentials, and proceeding to make — forgive me — non sequitur arguments from authority instead of substantively refuting the claims.

if this is what happens to a former department chair at Harvard when they question orthodoxy, it indeed does not augur well for less-credentialed researchers, regardless of the merit of their work.

the only good papers are the ones that survive multiple rounds of critiquing from a wide range of experts. Even great papers have problems, the point of journal clubs is to argue out all the varying reasonable lines (not the fringe ones) of ways the paper could be making a false conclusion (typically due to bad experimental technique or mistaken data analysis).

How would that have worked out in the example you have given, prior to a successful delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment? Would Bell's theorem have been consigned to the scrap heap? Would delayed-choice quantum eraser experiments then have been performed when they were?

By these standards, Darwin should have been rejected on the grounds of his faulty model of biological inheritance.

There needs to be some slack, because sometimes critics are more convincing than they are right.

No, the point of delayed choice quantum eraser is that it's the first really simple experimental setup that non-physicists can understand, and see how it violates the simple assumption of classical physics. It's sort of the Hershey Chase experiment, but for QM. If DCQE hadn't been done, Bell would have been fine, as the last of the no-loophole experiments are being run now.

To compress further, journal clubs [war game a paper's methods, results, and conclusions], so to speak.

Again, there is nothing wrong in critiquing his scientific ideas.

Being generous even if he's flat out wrong about Oumuamua, stating that "he has fringe ideas" as a response to an article about the reaction to fringe/fanciful ideas in science is doing him a disservice and not really discussing the article at hand or the points contained therein.

Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

What if there is no baby?

Then indeed there would be nothing to take issue with. However to make the analogy extremely tenuous (at best), one needs to show that there is no baby, rather than just claiming there isn't.

I think in most cases the onus to prove that there is a baby is on the one making the claim that this is so. Besides the impossibility of proving a negative.

Speculation, by definition, lacks proof. Where would we be without speculation? Speculation has to range wider than proof for there to be any intellectual progress.

Galileo, whose name is invoked frequently in these discussions, speculated broadly and was often wrong.

Social acceptance is not validity. Social rejection is not invalidity. Do we need to repeat it? Social acceptance is not validity. Social rejection is not invalidity.

> Everybody's got their brains and knives out to find any and all flaws in a paper to demolish it

Okay, what are the flaws then? Enough hand-waving, let's talk actual issues.

> Social acceptance is not validity. Social rejection is not invalidity.

Yes it is, otherwise the whole scientific method falls flat on its face. If you cannot expect that a person will identify valid and invalid ideas, what's the point of doing experiments and having people write up their research? If you cannot expect that a group of people will identify valid and invalid ideas, what's the point of peer review? If you cannot expect that the community of scientists will identify valid and invalid ideas, what's the point of doing science?

On what basis do you, personally, believe that the earth moves around the sun? For me, I believe it because the scientific community accepts it. Do you believe that it is at least possible that the sun really does move around the earth and the scientific community happens to be wrong?

What do you believe the speed of light to be? Did you just read it in a textbook? Who published the textbook? How did they know?

That said, yes, the process of human evaluation is very slow and very much prone to errors. But it fundamentally works.

Are you suggesting that the scientific method is actually a popularity contest? Seems dubious.

Yes. Who else besides the community of scientists is supposed to interpret the evidence and decide whether the earth really goes around the sun? The Pope?

The answer is, anyone who can. If you’re a random statistics professor but if you’ve somehow managed to build the capability to speak coherently about physics and mostly know what you’re talking about, you should be commenting on physics papers, regardless of the fact you’re “not a physicist,” because of your pedigree. You might find a serious mathematical error. The thing is, we tend to call people who do that in a way that’s good, “physicists,” so it’s a chicken-and-egg situation.

This is why science is not the same as truth. It's a method of obtaining truth, but it has major flaws. That said, it's the best method that exists. That does not mean it is perfect however. There exists, barring relativistic notions of state, a true state of the universe, much of which will never be measured or known by science. This should not be surprising.

> For me, I believe it because the scientific community accepts it.

There should be a much stronger reason: that the evidence is available, and not only has it been analyzed by other people, but it should have been analyzed by you as well. If we just accept that others have done the analysis, this is how major mistakes stay undiscovered for decades. (See the problem of the phantom reference.)

> Who published the textbook? How did they know?

Yes, we have to trust that most people are acting competently and with good intentions, because it's physically and emotionally impossible to investigate everything, but for no other reason. We should do our best to look in to every claim, especially ones that seem suspicious, because that diligence is what keeps science moving forward.

> the process of human evaluation is very slow and very much prone to errors. But it fundamentally works.

I agree, but that only holds true if people are actually doing the work of performing those evaluations.

> it should have been analyzed by you as well

This is nonsense. I'd love to, but I haven't literally dedicated my entire life to this specific topic as so many have, I don't believe I am smarter than the average scientist, I don't believe I can find flaws that the average scientist would have found, and I don't have enough time to test every single hypothesis that's accepted by the scientific community and makes its way into my life. I'm just going to do what most scientists do and focus on what I enjoy doing, and if that doesn't result in me completely revolutionizing physics so be it.

This "epistemological DIY" really only works for you if 1) you want to limit yourself to "proving" that apples and feathers fall at the same speed using highschool mechanics or 2) you're extremely arrogant and/or delusional.

If you can’t, you can’t, and that’s fine. But people who can, should. Knowledge tends to become siloed, and we always need to work against that; I’m sure the writers of physics and sociology papers, by and large, would appreciate a careful eye from a mathematician or statistician. We don’t have to be experts in each other’s fields to contribute to each other’s projects, the same way you don’t need to have a computer science degree to find a bug in systemd.

Otherwise we end up with situations like this, where something is plainly obvious to physicists but somehow never makes its way into an epidemiologist’s brain. [1]

[1] https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwu...

I responded specifically to the claim that "it should be analyzed by you" (which I assume means "regular people" since geoft didn't claim to be a scientist or mathematician or anything). So now you seem to be agreeing with me and disagreeing with what you said before and I quoted.

The article highlights a far more difficult problem, which is to get people who are knowledgeable in area A which happens to interface with area B to trust those who are experts in area B. Which is precisely the opposite of what happens when someone who isn't knowlegeable enough follows your advice and is unable to notice their own errors in interpretation and understanding.

So yeah, I'd rather stick to trusting the experts (in their respective areas) 99% of the time.

I think Neil Tyson has the right idea in his focus on promoting scientific literacy, which does not refer to "believing whatever scientists say." If a scientist says something surprising, we should be at least somewhat capable of verifying that the research says what they say it does. Will you be able to verify everything, or even most things? Of course not. But you will come out of it better than you would have remaining standing in ignorance.

> someone who isn't knowlegeable enough follows your advice and is unable to notice their own errors in interpretation and understanding

This happens even with experts in their own fields. That's why it is supposed to be the beginning of a dialogue between the reader and the writers, not a research project that happens in a vacuum. Science is a collaborative effort.

Oh it's all a bit more nuanced than that. The right kind of social acceptance (i.e. within a sub-society structured to seek validity) is a very good indication of that validity. That is why papers, journals, etc even exist.

It's a good proxy, but like all metrics, it's only accurate to a degree. There have been perfectly valid statements that were socially rejected, but that did not make them invalid, unless we are using a fun definition of "valid."

No worries: superdeterminism is perfectly valid QM. You can have that cake and eat it too.

What you lose out is the ability to know what that determinism is. You do the experiment and the universe really does know if the electron is destined to go left or right, and has ever since the Big Bang.

But you cannot possibly. Superdeterminism forbids you from knowing beyond a certain amount. There will always be a minimum uncertainty to you. (That's distinct from Heisenberg uncertainty, but it's related.) The only way to know which direction the electron goes is to do it. And having done it, you can't meaningfully talk about the alternative, which would be like trying to talk about what would happen if 3 were equal to 5.

So, if that's a thing you can live with, then you can have superdeterminism and be happy about it. QM will back you, and so will every QM experiment.

> I am heartened to see that people are still trying out ideas like superdeterminism, but I have to admit, all the data supports the basic QM model of the universe.

Here's what I don't get about "superdeterminism" – what it is "super-" about it? I read an explanation of "superdeterminism", and it just reads like plain old determinism to me. Any convinced determinist is going to say that of course determinism includes the human will among the things that are determined. Philosophers such as Spinoza or the Baron d'Holbach were already saying exactly that long before any physicist had thought up the term "superdeterminism".

"Determinism" covers a wide range of possibilities. Superdeterminism is more specific: every single piddling bit of apparent quantum randomness is actually already stored in some vast lookup table somewhere.

And everything else in the universe leading up to it, no matter how seemingly irrelevant, is constructed to lead up to that. To get that exact measurement from the device, you needed to set it up in that exact way at that exact time. The amount of time it took the clerk to count your change when you bought ice cream thus is a crucial part of that experiment. It was coded up at the beginning of time precisely so that the experiment could occur to give you that result.

Ordinary determinism can be a bit more lax about the specifics. It doesn't have to be, but it could be. It could focus on some other time scale: "It doesn't matter whether you pick chocolate or vanilla, you're still getting hit by a truck on the way out of the ice cream shop, so you get to choose what flavor you're enjoying when you get flattened". Superdeterminism denies that, right back to the beginning.

So it really is plain old determinism, but with a specific focus on, well, specificities.

I'm still wondering, if we look at the classical determinists in the history of philosophy, such as Spinoza, d'Holbach, Laplace, etc – were they superdeterminists or "subdeterminists"?

If the mainstream of historical determinism is in fact superdeterminism, then the term is a bit misleading, because it makes it sound like physicists are coming up with some new idea rather than just restating one that has been around for centuries (maybe even millennia).

There were at least two HN posts recently that posits that determinism is far from dead.

In fact, a central position point was that intuition, preference, and science’s unreasonable bias towards elegance has held back physics for a century.

Edit: Found the most recent one https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139...

> Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment

That paper is often misinterpreted. Its breathless conclusions don't look so special once you consider the experiment from the MWI perspective. Notably, they don't talk about the detection intensity much, even though it is quite important to the interpretation. Coincidence counters aren't white cards, and don't work the same! Yet, people interpret the paper as if the experiment would behave identically with an ordinary projector screen as the detector. It wouldn't, and that's the rub...

You too have been indoctrinated into the QM orthodoxy, and you've failed to realise that memorising catechisms might win you accolades with your peers, but doesn't necessarily help you understand the physical universe.

If you peel back modern QM, you'll find it is a very tall Jenga tower wobbling around in the wind, held up by more magical thinking that real science. The experiments it is based on have a very narrow scope, and those caveats and limitations are brushed aside by adherents.

People stating things like instant action at a distance despite special relativity being a thing for a century are just the same as a Christian priest ignoring geology and stating that God created the Earth in seven days. Self-contradictory notions such as the wave-particle duality are no different to the catholic concept of the holy trinity being one god. Giving up your devotion to rational thought is how you prove your devotion to the faith. The greater the nonsense, the stronger the proof of your willingness to be a team member.

Can you elaborate on the "detection intensity"? Genuinely curious as I haven't heard a modern critique of QM before and would like to learn the other side of the argument.

So the issue with coincidence counters in general is that they count... coincidences. Only. Nothing else.

White cards measure total photons.

You can fool yourself very easily by ignoring the total intensity of the photons per second measured with coincidence counters. E.g.: going from some distribution at intensity of "1 unit" to some other distribution at intensities of 1/2, 1/4, etc... might all mean different things. Essentially the detector is acting as a filter, "picking out" subsets of the signal. The drop in intensity is due to the filtering being highly selective.

However, if you read through many of these papers, including the quantum eraser paper, you'll note that they normalise the measurements so that they all look like they have unit intensity. This is misleading, because it looks like something is being changed ("erased"), but in reality its just that the experiment is being set up to increasingly filter to smaller and smaller subsets of the photon stream.

Looking at this through the lens of the many worlds interpretation (MWI) completely removes the mystery, making this a very boring and ordinary experiment that reveals nothing new.

Yet, "classical" QM theorists insist on breathlessly promulgating it as clear evidence of "quantum weirdness". It isn't weird. It's just purposefully misinterpreted to increase the mysticism.

This is directly comparable to the behaviour of priests and holy men. Religions wouldn't have as many ardent adherents if there was no mystery. You gotta have the mystery! The magic! The miracles!

Would Christianity be as popular if Jesus hadn't healed the sick and came back from the dead himself?

Would QM get as much funding if it was just some boring maths?