To explain, I’m just a big old ignorant layman, but with other scientific fields I at least CONCEPTUALLY understand how they came to their findings.

Like if a Geologist tells me something about rocks I’m like: “Okay, idk how geology works, but I assume you did some kind of experiments involving rocks so you probably know what you’re talking about.”

Or if a neurologist tells me something about the human brain: “Okay, idk shit about neurology, but I assume you did some kind of brain scan or took some brain samples or did some kind of scientific experiment thingy to know this stuff about brains. I don’t know the exact details but I can at least abstractly understand the process by which you learned this thing you’re telling me now.”

Then I’ll see some news report about some finding a theoretical physicists made and it’ll be like: “The Universe is made of strings! And also the sun is a black hole! The universe is shaped like a doughnut!”

And my honky ass is just like: “How the fuck do you know that shit? What are you looking at? How did you figure that crap out?”

  • purpleworm [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    6 days ago

    I know that it can be rhetorically very effective to just “say things” (i.e. to make assertions without needing to ground them in evidence or inference) and attack attack attack, but when you start out the gate saying things that are patently absurd, it makes you look like you’re grasping at straws. It also works much better when speaking rather than over text.

    Whichever “it” you’re referring to (theoretical physics or soft sciences), humanity owes a great deal to both. Do you think the theory of relativity is just scribbles on a chalkboard?

    I promise you that you can reverse course and you won’t be losing anything. There’s no need to dig in your heels over something so silly.

          • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            6 days ago

            So no?

            i-think-that knowing what you are talking about is a basic prerequisite for discussion.

            If you are being genuine then please leave the whining about fallacies back on Reddit.

            • xijinpingist [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              Whatever that is, the CPC doesn’t believe in it and hasn’t for a long time. Mao was 70% right and 30% wrong. He was wrong a LOT. Eespecially Jiang Qing, who was a queen evil and member of the Gang of Four

          • Blakey [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            6 days ago

            …asking whether YOU know anything about the subject under discussion has literally nothing to do with an appeal to authority, are you OK?

            As a commie propagandist you should be familiar with this old saw: no investigation, no right to speak! Was Mao doing an appeal to authority, too? Or is that just a reasonable expectation for any sensible person to have?

      • purpleworm [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        You are clinging to anti-intellectualism with no support for your position in the face of the fact that, again, the theory of relativity was the product of theoretical physics and it’s extremely important to the modern world.

        Why are you so attached to your conclusion that it leads you to behave this way? How does it help you?

          • purpleworm [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            6 days ago

            It is also the basis for radiological medical imaging technologies, as well as basically all satellite systems, including GPS, which is vital to many systems beyond just navigation. Your objection is completely unserious.

            I repeat: Why are you so attached to your conclusion that it leads you to behave this way? How does it help you?

          • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            This reads like thinly veiled Deutsche Physik bullshit about certain sciences being too abstract and Jewish. Relativity and quantum are not just theory of nuclear weapons. (Edited to dial this back slightly)