Hacker News Reader

Comment by ralfn | Hacker News Reader

She wrote a book about this topic.

So the claim that there is no substantiation is false. You just didn't bother to find out.

I’ve read a few of these articles and they all have basically the same format, which is similar enough that they’re not quite as interesting to read. First a headline “does the invention of Swiss Cheese mean that Cheddar Cheese is extinct?” Followed by a little bit of interesting and useful scientific summarization. Then onwards to a point about how we’re dealing with lots of theories and not enough empirical data, so the whole field is useless and also not worth spending time on.

I would point out that lots of other important scientific fields have been in this situation before. Maybe there’s an interesting argument to the overfunding (but then again, developing theories is also pretty important!). But mostly it just feels like she’s made the point and while it’s an important point, getting a clear picture of the scientific results is more valuable than this particular opinion. (But I stress, it is her platform to do with as she wants.)

Fair enough, I wasn't aware. I'll check it out.

I think you mean this: “Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray”

https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Math-Beauty-Physics-Astray/dp/04...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1KFTPqc0nQ

I still find the tone off putting, reminds me of the fox and the grapes fable, not sure if it's known to most cultures.

Nevertheless, I'll watch the video and reexamine my opinion.

I’m just generally increasingly off put by the internets incessant “quibbling”. This seemingly endless juxtaposition of antithesis to follow any thesis. At some point that becomes just more noise, and that can be used by an agenda.

I still found her point valid and interesting and not at all noise. My takeaway is more that new physics might well be out of our energetic grasps until we build some much larger accelerators. Little idea how to convince society of the worth of that expense. Maybe if it can produce useful substances for industrial use. I’d love more knowledge on expansions to the periodic table, for example.

Adding more because I've read her book (not to quibble). I wouldn't say the point is that new physics is out of reach until we build more expensive accelerators. She herself is a theoretical physicist, has theories she'd like to see tested and proposes experiments that could do so. I think she's saying rather that particle physics involves enormous opportunity costs -- decades long / billion dollar experiments -- and that the research agenda is not scientifically justified, but is sociological and even aesthetic in origin.

I am as well, because the internet isn’t designed for people to reach an objective consensus about reality nor does it account for the way humans really engage one another naturally. We need a platform designed to encourage people to reach understanding but anyone, myself included, who wants to do this is looking for a profit motive when some things are more important than profit as much as I hate to say it.

The HN-centric term for this is "middlebrow"; a good middlebrow filter is definitely required to navigate HN.

Can you elaborate?

Searching HN for it brings up this explanation as the first hit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072224

ya i aint never heard the term b4 neither. colorful. wonder if middlebrow refers to furrowing between teh browz??>

> fox and the grapes fable, not sure if it's known to most cultures.

That's one of Aesop's fables. I believe it's widely known, at least in all western cultures. The fox can't reach the grapes he desires, so he concludes the grapes were sour and he didn't want them anyway.

That's the one, yes.

The idiom "sour grapes" comes from that story!

If it's what I think it is, it's usually (in english at least) succinctly referred to as "Sour grapes"

While I don't generally like her tone, I liked her book a lot. It has a lot of stuff for further research, and there are at least a dozen book suggestions in there. On the other hand she attacks the "beautification" of physics' theories without providing any alternative approach whatsoever.

Deleted comment

How is attacking her character contributing to the conversation?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com