What I wrote needed to be said, despite evidently containing very little interesting content, precisely because of how severely it provokes certain people who claim not to even disagree with it. The degree of the provocation proves the value of the statement.
>What I wrote needed to be said
There are apparently plenty of people who disagree (myself included) based on the comments. I think the reaction you're getting is because it's not a particularly fruitful comment because it adds nothing to the conversation, while being veiled as a profound statement.
>The degree of the provocation proves the value of the statement.
Except the response isn't a response to the claim, it's in response to the absence of one. If a researcher publishes some incomprehensible word-salad and lots of people write to the editor saying it's a worthless article, it doesn't somehow translate value to the original work. I think what you're experiencing is people being protective of HN in terms of having meaningful debate and what you said isn't particularly meaningful despite the wordsmithing.
As of the writing of this comment, every single comment I wrote here was upvoted. So, no. I can’t control the future, but what you wrote here was absolutely false when you wrote it.
> There are apparently plenty of people who disagree (myself included) based on the comments.
And that’s great — that means it’s thought provoking enough to generate debate with complex views on both sides. In other words, yet again proving the value of the statement.
Again, people pushing back doesn’t mean you’re fostering fruitful debate anymore than flat-earthers are generating debate “with complex views.”
Please point to where I first used forum upvotes as a useful metric.
The point of science isn't to punk the researchers. So no, what you wrote didn't need to be said.
As I (and others) have repeatedly pointed out, our models are wrong. We know they are wrong. What they are is less wrong than previous models. That doesn't make them "right" or "dogma." Rather it makes them the model that currently provides the best explanation for observed reality.
That neither requires or suggests that research/investigation into modifications of our current models and/or into completely different models is unseemly or inappropriate.
What I (and presumably others, as they've expressed similar thoughts) require, if you want me to accept modified/brand new theories/models is, at a minimum, a logic-based argument as to why a modified/new model describes the universe more completely/accurately than current models. Assuming you can convince me that it's plausible, the next step is to present observational data that supports your logically argued hypothesis -- and that such data is described by your model/theory more completely/accurately than other models. I.e., that your theory/model is less wrong than our extant models which are also wrong, but less wrong than previous models/theories.
And if you can't present such data (e.g., with M-Theory[0]), then it's not science, it's just math, philosophy and/or metaphysics.
That's not to say math/philosophy/metaphysics aren't useful. They absolutely are. However, without data (or the means to collect such data), it's impossible to falsify[1] such hypotheses and, as such, aren't science.
This is a great heuristic to practice often. I just told my wife she looks fat in her new dress, and the degree of her provocation proves the value of my statement.
Saying “the sky is up” and having people respond by telling you that is a trivial point shouldn’t be conflated with fostering a meaningful dialog.