Comments by "James Power" (@jamespower5165) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

  1. What you are is completely close-minded which means you've stopped thinking which means you are no good to anyone The research is thin on the ground. Good statistics will be hard to get because we're dealing with a rare phenomenon wirh social stigma associated with it and good sample sizes will be hard to get. If you have a rare medical disorder, often a treatment that works well for one will do poorly on another. THIS IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF ISSUE on which maximum open-mindededness is required. Anyone who is the opposite is no good to anyone
    3
  2. "Personally observed" and "statistical trends" don't really go together. And good statistics will be hard to find because transpeople are very thin on the ground
    2
  3. ​ @EbonyPope That may be a better analogy for certain kinds of technology, space travel for example. And it's not really about understanding so much as modeling. Newer modeling techniques(mathematics) can arise and develop independently of their applications and as much as a century later be applied to a particular problem. So science will go on but not always at the same rate. Certain problems will seem utterly impenetrable for a time until a breakthrough of some kind happens which depends on a completely different way of looking at it. And then there's steady progress
    1
  4. ​ @James-g3w7w The boundaries of many concepts are vague, such as tall and short, handicapped and not handicapped. Besides which race has always depended on social perceptions. And the same social perceptions can be used as a measure of it. The most precise theories we have leave off at a certain point in precision, and even ideas like person A is responsible for person B's death are extremely vague if you peer close enough. Meanwhile a statement such as person A is responsible for person B's death is fantastically precise compared to saying side A won a war or even a battle against side B as we do in history. So making precision the bone of contention will not work at all
    1
  5. ​ @ReiPlush_MH The idea is that in the course of working on your important projects you keep publishing your partial results. This is better actually that what happened in the past when many mathematicians for example never published many results(no doubt hoping to build on them by themselves) and they had to be rediscovered by others later. Gauss especially had a maxim about papers - Few but ripe - and that meant others didn't have the opportunity to use these partial results for a long time. In this instance at least, academic pressure has a positive impact. When you publish your partial results they are useful to other people in their own work instead of waiting for you to develop your grander work which might never happen
    1
  6. ​ @danix4883 Nobody calls you anything for proposing a hypothesis. That by itself has no merit in science. It does not matter if your hypothesis is a departure from or mostly aligned with current ideas. You have to show how your hypothesis gives better results than existing ones making fewer or less arbitrary assumptions. If you can do that, the scientific community will take notice. The typical working scientist understands that and they do the work before they propose anything. When they make a presentation, everything is in place. If you say something not very precise and call it a hypothesis, and you haven't even done the work to make it precise, there is no scientific value to that
    1
  7. Yes, I am also curious. Please provide a detailed reply
    1