Comments by "Ash Roskell" (@ashroskell) on "Sabine Hossenfelder"
channel.
-
109
-
Great, informative video. I love your genuine open mindedness, your capacity to separate what is, “science,” from other provinces, such as, “politics,” and your unflustered way of dealing with reality; “The facts, ma’am. Just the facts.” Awesome. And, sadly, rather unique. Popular science dissemination needs more people like you, Sabine.
68
-
31
-
31
-
23
-
23
-
19
-
19
-
14
-
She’s wrong. Not about Dirac, or the incorrect assumptions that some scientists have made. Nor is she wrong (necessarily) about the vast sums we spend on colliders and how it might better be used. I’m not qualified to quantify that last. But, to argue that there is no value in trying to understand why anti-matter did not annihilate the entire universe at its inception is just wrong headed. She’s trying to invalidate the science by invalidating the question, which is a personality thing, not a scientific approach. Even she admits it would be great to know the answer. We don’t have to call it a, “problem,” but surely it’s a sensible question? She makes an assumption of her own; that there simply wasn’t an equal amount of anti-matter, but she cannot know that, simply by inferring it from our existence? The discovery of anti-matter stars would make a nonsense of that assumption for a start. There could have been a condition that kept anti-matter apart from baryonic matter, which would in turn, tell us incredibly important things about physics and the universe? To say the question has no value is no different to saying any question in physics has no value, despite her knowledge that many of the greatest, most important discoveries that have tangibly changed our world, were made by scientists who were simply interrogating questions that interested them and could have had no way of knowing where their investigations would ultimately lead. Newton could never have known that he was contributing to GPS Satellite technology for instance.
It strikes me as a stubborn resistance to accelerators has been conflated with the basis of their use in her mind? She’d be more honest if she questioned their use alone, rather than the question itself. When she does that I see a slippery slight of hand at work, but she’s merely sawing at the branch she’s sitting on. Anyone can say, “It is what it is,” about any value. Indeed, many scientists have done so in history, and later come off as the fools for doing so. Edward Hoyle did the same thing when he coined the, “Big Bang Theory,” for work that he personally didn’t like, yet which proved to be perfectly true.
I wish scientists would stay out of their internal politics in these videos and just get on with the science? There’s a, “teachable moment,” in this for her too.
8
-
Sounds like an unhelpful way to live? She put her finger on it at the end, there. It’s not an argument about science, but one about philosophy. If anything, it’s a political debate about, ‘’Trust,” and refusing to rely upon authority figures. It’s easy to defeat a flat earther’s scientific argument, if they are in the same room as you, and you have access to the internet. But, they will discount everything you show them, based on their, “distrust,” of sources. Exploring WHY their distrust, and the incomprehensible, elaborate, and pointless lengths all governments would have to go to, to agree upon one single conspiracy theory, when they cannot agree on the price of bread, literally, will only tell you more about their emotional dysfunctions, intellectual shortcomings, or both. So, that’s why I hesitate to even lend flat earthers the flattery of acknowledging their philosophical position. Because you can still be hyper-skeptical about the world, without refuting demonstrable facts. Most of them know they’re just trolling anyway, which makes them emotionally damaged and intellectually challenged to start with. Others are exploiting people for money and attention. They represent the malign influence that has grown like a cancer over the planet, with the expansion of the World Wide Web. The rest deserve our pity. ✌️👍
8
-
Physics has one of the worst historical records for denial and holding back progress in science, but it isn’t talked about much. I would love to meet just one proponent of Inflation Theory who has taken the expansion of time into account, along with space, for instance? Tell them, “From a huge distance, space and baryonic matter looks tiny, so why shouldn’t time? Or don’t we believe in the direct connection between space and time, which is why we call it space-time since Einstein, anymore?” The best answer I’ve had so far is, “You just don’t get it.” But I can never persuade them to explain what I, “don’t get?”
Sooner or later, people will accept that Inflation never occurred at all, but only appears to have done so from our distant perspective, from the further away you are in time, just as space looks different, from the bigger the distance. It’s a set of category errors that actually reveals something interesting about how we grasp complex notions like Space-Time. It’s not intuitive, therefore it’s vulnerable to assumption and confirmation bias, because we can’t resist thinking about it in terms of our own, limited, experience.
In this case, complexity has taken such a deep hold on thinking about astrophysics that common sense is being left out of the equations.
What I’m certain of is that we need more scientists with the attitude of Sabine, who simply speaks without deference or emotion, but plainly and without fear of offence, though whilst being polite at the same time. She’s just interested in the facts, regardless of how people feel about them, or what the emotional investment is.
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@clicheguevara5282 : Awesome. I wasn’t kidding about being diagnosed with both Autistic Spectrum stuff and ADD, and I am often perceived as being, “over assertive,” (a logical impossibility if you understand the definitions of those words) with strangers, when I just think I’m being direct. I guess I say the quiet parts out loud too much?
The irony is, I was very successful as a psychotherapist and family therapist, taking the then Queen’s shilling, for preventing kids being taken into care, wherever possible, safe and in the interests of the child. But my history with friendships and relationships has always been rocky.
Your mum sounds great. I bet I’d get along with you guys rather well. Thanks for the comment. Made me smile, my friend.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@caribbeanman3379 : Flat Earthers are, “neither stupid nor anti-scientific,” but they are obtuse trolls, who love getting attention of any kind, even if it’s not positive attention. They exploit the paranoia of people who already don’t trust, “authority,” figures. The ones who are, “not faking it,” are no mystery either. In fact, she answered any queries as to their motivation in her very next utterance. The, “Money.” There’s an awful lot of it to be made, out of the gullible, the credulous, the distrustful and ultimately, the emotionally and psychologically damaged. Such people, who accept grants for the, “research,” and donations from around the world, are ruthless exploiters, or ignoramuses, not realising (or caring) about the harm they could do.
Or, to put it another way, Flat Earthers are, for various different reasons (not always their own fault) full of sh*t.
4
-
@johnjamesbaldridge867 : When you fall into the, “Well, other people agree with me,” trap, you’re already on shaky ground. As far as I know, (and I really HOPE I’m wrong about his?) Roger Penrose is the only physicist I know of who has (obliquely) asked a very common sense question about Inflation Theory (which should technically be called, “Inflation Hypothesis,” but that’s another can of worms) which is:
If space, “inflated,” in the blink of an eye, why didn’t time inflate with it? Why does Inflation Theory abandon Einstein’s fundamental hypotheses at the CRUCIAL moment? I genuinely believe that once you put E=MC2 back into the equation, you will get a result that makes perfect sense and explains that, “space,” did NOT just jump on its own! “Time,” as viewed from a vast distance, looks tiny in the same way that distant baryonic matter does!
Why should Space-Time cease to be a, “thing,” despite absolutely EVERY other observation we can make conforming to the basic rules of physics, wherever we look at any point in space and time? The reason that space has the same temperature (“homogeneity”) across the entire sky is that it all occurred at the same, “time,” but only appears to speed up, because we’re seeing it from a vast distance. You literally have to abandon E=MC2 for Guth’s hypothesis to make sense! And he offers absolutely zero account for WHY space decided to just expand at a rate that literally requires more energy than the universe posses! Not just a bit more, but logarithmic scales more energy than could possibly exist. Occam’s Razor applied to the problem; and you look for an explanation that accounts for what we SEE and for what IS right now, and we apply the KNOWN theory of how space AND time are INEXTRICABLY linked, making them ONE THING. Then it’s actually intuitive, makes more sense than inflation, and fits the evidence.
Space and time are expanding, which is basically, “what,” the universe is. The none-static properties of the universe are what give rise to ALL observed phenomena, and explain why we automatically miscalculate, “time,” and distance, failing to take time’s expansion into account along with that of space itself. But plug in time’s expansion and you have solvable equations that stay within the parameters of OBSERVATION.
I would so dearly love to sit down with those two guys over a coffee. Although, maybe Guth’s should be decaffeinated? 😉
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@zed1stwizard : We’re probably on a similar, if not the same page? Dawkins’ book, The Blind Watch Maker, (though flawed, in my opinion) was a tour de force and an excellent read. I would recommend it to anyone for its sharp focus on the scientific process, and for the thinking about how and why we do science at all. It’s a great look at the philosophy of science, almost Baconian in its depth and scope. He put forward his arguments, made his case, and should have left it at that. But, rather like a child, he was unhappy when challenged, or refuted. And there’s nothing like a scientist who doesn’t want to own his own mistakes or oversights, who gets all, “defensive,” about his personal philosophy, and wants the world to accept his personal philosophy as the Paradigm we live in; no questions asked. Before we knew it, he’d built a large following, with cult like adoration, and he’d turned what could have been an interesting contribution to the philosophy of science and skepticism, into a LIFESTYLE choice. Now, we’re all either in his club, or suspect outsiders at best!
I joined a live chat on the web, for one of his book launches, over 10 years ago now. He got really mad at me and left the chat. Stating that he was leaving because he didn’t like my contributions. This left me surrounded by a bunch of disappointed fans, happy to, “blame,” me for his absence, and abusing me in Royal fashion. I had a ball, I must admit; staying calm throughout and focussing on those who were able to ask and answer questions.
But, here’s the funny bit. About 5 or 6 minutes after he’d left, he’d returned, stating that his agent had told him he was contractually obliged to see through the session. Yet, I think he’d assumed that, because he’d set his dogs on me, I would be gone. A strategy that he probably employed before? When he saw I was happily chattering away with people, (I must admit to being a little childish here) I wrote something to the effect, “Don’t feel bad, Richard (no one else was using his first name, nor had he suggested they should) I’ll accept your apology graciously now.” And, he up and left again. Immediately, without a word. You can imagine the reaction I got from the fan base then . . .
He’s a miserable tick, who’s ego seems to be most massaged, when he’s shattering children’s toys and stealing their sweeties, it seems to me. Proud, Bishop like and joyless.
I honestly came away from that experience somewhat disillusioned and unhappy, despite having a wail of a time, while it was happening. But, then I read Rupert Sheldrake’s book, The Science Delusion. I thought it was going to be a bunch of mystic mumbo jumbo, so I’d put off reading it, but it was a revelation to me. Not just because it was written by a highly respected scientist, with revolutionary science to his own credit, and a firm belief in the scientific method, either. But, because he includes a chapter about his dealing with Richard Dawkins. Once I saw the Dawkins I’d encountered, reflected precisely as I’d encountered him, I felt a lot better about myself and the way I had behaved. If you haven’t read that book, I urge you to. And, you’ll see how Dawkins is not above doctoring his own results and committing what amounts to all but fraud in my book, for a Channel 4 Documentary in the UK.
So, I have little to no respect for the man, much more for his abilities as a philosopher. As a scientist, I have considerably less respect for him now, because I’ve learned that he will blatantly misrepresent the views of others, and their science, which, to me, is no different from defrauding your scientific results . . . At least, morally speaking, and with respect to, “character.”
Sorry to go on so long, but I though you might be interested? ✌️
2
-
2
-
That’s a misunderstanding of what, “free will,” is. And a conflation of will power with free will. No, we cannot change climate outcomes by positive thinking. But, free will has no bearing on that. Consider your example, about what to eat, but then think of when someone denies themself a food, even though they really want it and have access to it, but know it will be bad for them. Choosing not to self harm despite the organic imperatives of the brain, reacting to generations of genetic programming, which telling you to eat sugar, salt and fats whether you need them or not, because of a scarcity that no longer exists, is a higher functioning thought of autonomous decision making, which overpowers instincts and is an act of free will. That exists and is essential to the meaning of life.
Your definition is something else and needs its own label. Simply because physics cannot comment on free will, doesn’t rule out its existence. Granted, that is no proof of its existence, but it is not incumbent on free will believers to prove anything to the sceptic, who cannot prove her hypothesis. Science has little to say about the matter, but this really is a case of, “That whereof we cannot speak, we can say nothing,” as Lichtenstein put it. It does not prove anything more, other than the fact that maybe people have been bad at explaining what free will actually is to you?
2
-
2
-
Many Worlds Theory (MTW) is a philosophical argument, not science. There may well be some math to support it as an, “argument,” but there is no evidence, testable predictions, falsifiability, and no scientific reason to even want to believe in it. The reason MWT was invented was, ironically, as an argument to refute the existence of God. And that’s all it does. It is now a form of Dogma, reinforced by people who are guilty of the precise crimes they teach us are abominations in science. The same egregious group think, dogmatic refusal to accept reality and willingness to persecute those who reject their philosophy, that Galileo is argued to have been the victim of, at the hands of the Catholic Church, is literally WHY MWT exists! Fact.
2
-
2
-
And that is precisely why science has hit a brick wall and been stuck for about 20 years on the issues of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Because physics and wondered into the realms of philosophy, not science. Worse still, it has done so for largely disingenuous reasons.
I’m kinda late to this party but, for what it’s worth . . . It is true that science has nothing to say about, “God.” Certainly not the God of the three main faiths that share the same original Jehovah. In the same way that physics has nothing to say about an individual’s personal taste in music, or to explain why we’re happy or sad. And that works both ways. While one’s personal faith might inform a scientist’s personal approach to their work, their relationships within the scientific community, or the type of physics they are interested in, God will not show up in their equations, nor should He.
I take issue, only in part, with one thing you said. Dark Energy is my exemplar to explain why. People assume it exists, because of observed phenomena, but they might be investigating something that is not even there, or real in a physical sense? It could be an effect of gravity that has not yet been discovered, or any one of several other hypotheses that have been suggested by great minds? Yet, we investigate it, because we want to understand the universe better and settle on a universally understood theory, which would benefit all of science and, ultimately, all of human kind. You will say, “Yes. But that is a scientific response to a real, observable phenomena in the universe, which science has something to say about.” But, my answer would be that there are phenomena which are genuinely, objectively experienced in the universe, which could be caused by something outside of our time space continuum, like Dark Energy, that could be caused by a knowing, all powerful, “god-like,” consciousness. Science cannot rule that out, despite the fact that there is no hypothesis for investigating it directly.
That being said, though science has nothing to say about God and God has nothing to say about hard science, all I’m suggesting is that, once we start using science to refute the existence of God, we have done a disservice to both science and people of faith. On the one hand, we are ruling out the possibility of something, without any evidence to support that stance: attempting to prove a negative, which is by its nature, impossible. And, on the other hand, we are making God a preoccupation of science, whilst arguing that God has no place in science. If scientists believe there’s no place for God in the physics, they fail to see the fallacy of their own placing of God at the centre of the science, in a vain attempt to prove a negative.
That’s comes off as a bad faith exercise, and somewhat oppressive to people of faith, don’t you think? Scientists need to leave God alone, if they truly have no belief in him. A trivial point, you think? If you think that, you’re failing to see why physics has hit a brick wall in the last 20 or so years. Instead of doing the science they get paid to do, physicists (not all of them, obviously) have devoted themselves to the disputation of faith, spending time, money and other resources on ever increasingly extravagant hypotheses, which are reaching a breaking point of sheer lunacy, if you ask me!
“Many Worlds?” Really? An entire structure of, “scientific,” thinking, upon which millions have now been spent, despite there being ZERO proof for any of it! Sure, there are elegant mathematic theorems, etc, but all of them are fatally flawed when any attempt is made to apply them to the real world. An infinite number of dimensions, stretching out forever, from every single decision point of every living creature, which would make one minute of one day create so many separate universes springing into existence (out of thin vacuum) that their number is literally incalculable; yet bigger than the number of electrons in the known universe? Give me a break! It’s a philosophy, not a scientific hypothesis, and what’s more, it is far less plausible than the notion of a god.
So yes, I would agree that the two spheres of human endeavour, “faith,” and, “science,” have NOTHING to say to each other. But, instead of fallaciously trying to rid god from the equations, why don’t scientists get their own message, and leave God alone? If they stuck to the observable universe, instead of wasting vast sums on colliders, we might have all had our flying cars by now, floating on a cloud of Dark Matter, repelling the effects of gravity? I mean, who knows? Does it really require a new, enlightened generation before science can take its next paradigm shift, back to real physics? . . . ✌️
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jaybingham3711 : Well said. I also believe that there ought to be a compulsory foundational year devoted to science history, science philosophy and critical thinking theory. At least for anyone who’s studying to a degree level and plans to have a future in the field. A lot of us overlook the fact that most top scientists are ordinary people who expected to spend the rest of their lives doing science for a company or the government, making a decent living, but never expecting to be thrust into the limelight. Then, these shy, cerebral people find themselves becoming famous, making serious money from their books and lecture tours and being discussed in YouTube videos. They get prestigious awards and are not trained or equipped for the world of, “popular science,” or necessarily have the wherewithal to cope.
They are flawed people who, unlike actors, singers, politicians, etc, are not experienced in the field of, “popular opinion,” and don’t have, “managers,” or and entourage to help them cope (or lead them on a path to their own destruction in a tabloid splash about hookers and cocaine😆) so, if they are not supremely well adjusted, they can go a little strange when people start challenging the very work that won them their prizes and the root to all that cash.
Critical thinking can go out of the window so fast in some situations. That’s why I like Sabine. She knows she’s going to take a lot of heat for being rational. I don’t always agree with her, but I know she wouldn’t be emotional about that. She would want to hear my argument and then prove me wrong, agree that I’m right, or need to time to think it over and test her equations. That’s a rare quality that I admire, and which I believe needs to be defended at all costs.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Loved this video. FINALLY I found a serious physicist willing to say out loud what so many of us lay-physics-fans have been thinking for all these years. I disagree with your definition of religion, if not the point you were making about it, but that’s all. After all, for many, the personal revelation of Gods or a God is very real to them, therefore has a personally evident basis for conviction in that belief. However, any thinking person would accept that this is not a basis for forcing that belief on anyone else, even if they enthuse about spreading it. So I have always maintained that the multiverse is a philosophical belief, like a preference for a political system. You can see effects in the real world resulting from the work people do to strive for that ideal - or in multiverse terms, the effects of their experiments to try to prove the hypothesis, or the effects their math has on others - but you can never see, touch, smell, or feel the idea in the real world. It still alters people’s behaviour and their goals in life, but that has no bearing on science or platonic evidence for being a thing. Not sure if I’m making sense now, but I hope that makes sense to someone.
2