Why are scientist so dumb now?

You mean, why are the brainlets celebrated now. There's still incredible scientists, its just that they aren't as eager to chase the spotlight.

Lawrence Krauss is an egotistical fuckwit

File: smcd.jpg (41KB, 446x369px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 446x369px

>comparing nobel prize winners to pop scientists

>>8712575
I always find this hard to believe. You're acting as if scientists back then did like the spotlight, and then suddenly every single one is now a recluse. It seems more plausible that there's an active effort by the media or whoever to keep scientists in the shadows for some reason.

>>8712537
Commoner interests these days require something flashy to hold their limited attention spans, hence the meme scientists you posted and their opinions on philosophy of all things. Sage

>>8712584
I don't believe they liked the spotlight, I do however believe that society in general valued actual progress and brought the spotlight to them. Now it seems that we've exchanged our core values for something more consumer friendly.

>>8712537
Four guys thinking about implications created atomic bomb.
Four guys getting spotlight because "science".

>>8712537
You're comparing legitimate scientists with mechanical engineers masquerading as scientists, and pop science attention whores.

>>8712598
Or maybe the past had its celebrities and meme scientists too, but they were eventually forgotten because they didn't do anything historically relevant?

Because people have supplanted religious figures with scientists as the prophets of the future.

>>8712626
dawkins and krauss actually are legit scientists, albeit probably not nearly as historically important as anyone in the left column

>>8712537
Bill Nye isn't even shitting on philosophy, he's just wary of the notion of it
Also, Nye BTFO of Tyson in terms of practical knowledge as far as I know, assuming I'm using that acronym correctly

>>8712576
More so than the others?

>>8712674
Yes he is. Have you watched the video?

>>8712537
You should at least compare nobel prize winners to nobel prize winners faggot

Nice job cherry picking pop science fags and comparing them to nobel prize winning scientists you fucking brainlet.

>>8712683
Definitely. He tried to claim women's suffrage was because of science.

>>8712688
What video?

why is the quantum mechanical world so disjoint from the macroscopic framework of collision dynamics we see every day? how can we convolve down to a chemical level and propose that bonds break and link, but when we look at the atomic and its orbital form, or true paths, we can only utilize probability distributions, but not only that, but they don't add or subtraction conventionally. they interfere. i feel like such a disparity of basic properties of the summation of averages, is where things broke down for me mentally, as i can't fathom what is the underlying mechanism for the disparity. i know we have a model that can describe how probabilities interfere, but what i desire is some insight on what formula, evaluated to a limit that is macroscopic and subatomic, go from classical and quantum mechanical in describing the position and momentum of particles, and the collision dynamics that occurs, and most of all, can be analyzed to explain WHY this transition occurs. i can't be satisfied with just being told our model has to be disjoint. i want to know why, and then figure out how to combine it again. is scale inherently asymmetric with our laws of nature?

>>8712706
That's true and there is nothing egotistical about that.

>>8712714
Oooh, I like you. A BR ratio of... 0.3 I wager, but it is on a topic of such importance that I would claim any BR ratio >0.1 would be astounding, let alone 0.3

>>8712725
pardon?

>>8712719
Womens suffrage was not a scientific movement, are you retarded?

>>8712693
There are no nobel prize winners who criticize philosophy

>>8712707
http://bigthink.com/videos/bill-nye-on-philosophy

>>8712728
Another /sci/ schizophrenic. Don't take him too seriously

>>8712728
You don't need to be pardoned really. However to help you along: Is planck length applicable in the center of a black hole?

Might be easier to start with knowing that (particle | star | black hole) all fall under 'nature' but the mathematics that applies adjusts for scale. Fun fun fun.

>>8712750
I've actually never seen anyone post under /sci/mon save for myself, if you exclude the 'I like to suck cocks' stuff. Is it really so hard for people to believe that I am just 'one' guy/girl/bog/kek? Singularity -1

>>8712651
definitely this. A lot of these guys 'won the last war' so to speak, so naturally with rose colored glasses historians and the general public looks back on them with fondness.

>>8712768
in the center of a black hole there is a singularity. a singularity is defined as having zero volume, and in turn, undefined density. planck length is a fundamental unit defined by the constants which define the minimal amount of energy that a particle will be generated from or excited with. it's, as far as i understand, the minimal amount of distance that an interaction can be said to have occured. for a black hole, event horizon, and its singularity, measurements are scarce as nothing can escape the closed minkowski space lines formed by the mass in its center.

i feel like im wrong but i don't know where to proceed from here.

>>8712774
So why could you not equally say that a black hole is the smallest possible unit that it could be and exceeds planck?

What's fundamentally incorrect about stating that a blackhole is the largest small thing that can exist and is simply a process?

You are still in the (?) stage, which can suck for a while. You'll achieve escape velocity soon enough though.

Yes yes, you'll complain that it makes no sense for something to be both 0 and 1. Push through that nonsense. Ternary operations are more than feasible, given most things are pure perception. Work E=MC^2 backwards, because hey, why not?

>>8712781
>So why could you not equally say that a black hole is the smallest possible unit that it could be and exceeds planck?
it's more about what mechanism makes it not degenerate further below planck. that is, im speculating as to what exclusion form of our description of states, energy conservation laws, and by extension symmetry laws can be postulated by a singularity which is simply an amalgamation of the most basic constraints below the pauli exclusion principle, if that is the case.
>What's fundamentally incorrect about stating that a blackhole is the largest small thing that can exist and is simply a process?
it's not that it's wrong, i just don't know how to model that process in my head. i can't grasp what repulsive forces prevent it from being sub planck other than the circularity that sub planck events are empirically ambiguous.
>You are still in the (?) stage, which can suck for a while. You'll achieve escape velocity soon enough though.
but what if im in a schwarzschild radius?
>Yes yes, you'll complain that it makes no sense for something to be both 0 and 1. Push through that nonsense. Ternary operations are more than feasible, given most things are pure perception. Work E=MC^2 backwards, because hey, why not?
so it's a superposition of having been collapsed into nothing, and being above planck scale? would probability distributions and wave functions properly model such a intepretation?

>>8712787
>it's more about what mechanism makes it not degenerate further below planck. that is, im speculating as to what exclusion form of our description of states, energy conservation laws, and by extension symmetry laws can be postulated by a singularity which is simply an amalgamation of the most basic constraints below the pauli exclusion principle, if that is the case.
It has already gone below/above planck by virtue of being a black hole. Are you asking for how it gets to that point or how it 'stays' at that point?

>it's not that it's wrong, i just don't know how to model that process in my head. i can't grasp what repulsive forces prevent it from being sub planck other than the circularity that sub planck events are empirically ambiguous.
You see I think it is because when people consider 'scale' they assume linear, whereas a black hole is more a superposition of scales.

>but what if im in a schwarzschild radius?
See? The BR ratio isn't hard to understand.

>so it's a superposition of having been collapsed into nothing, and being above planck scale? would probability distributions and wave functions properly model such a intepretation?
Wave functions/harmonics/wave forms: Yes. Probability distributions are more like trying to figure out 'that one song' by randomly tuning your radio through INFINITE RADIO STATIONS or assuming the static makes sense.

>>8712614
>Four guys getting spotlight because "science".
Na it's because pseuds don't read; they want everything spoon-fed to them as a meme, blog post, or YouTube vid.

>>8712801
and what's wrong with that you self important prick?

File: Sean_Carroll.jpg (18KB, 220x330px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 220x330px

>>8712537
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/23/physicists-should-stop-saying-silly-things-about-philosophy/


Not all scientists are ignorant of philosophy.

>>8712537
The guys on the right are correct, just using pop language. Most of the guys on the right aren't even disagreeing with them.

ITT: Butthurt brainlet philofags compare apples and oranges
>op you'll always be stupid

>Dawkins
>Krauss
>Nye
>NDT

>scientist

>>8712537
they got pavloved into chasing the money instead of chasing the truth

>>8712537

>le science nigger man
>scientist

>>8712875
>m-muh t-tertiary sources
I bet you've cited Wikipedia in a paper before

>>8712537
Why do you only know pop scientists?
You're a dumbass

all the genius scientists are living in underground utopian lab cities breeding a master race and developing the technologies they're going to use to wipe out the prole surface dwellers

>>8712537
>comparing Nobel prize winning scientists to pop sci people

Why would you make such an asinine comparison?

>>8712537
Heisenberg, Einstein, Schrödinger and Bohr didn't get to witness all the bullshit philosophy has produced in the past 70 years.

To be fair, 90% of every new age philosopher I've read about justify their life decisions with "quantoom mekanichs"

>>8712537
They arent, the celebrities are puppets

>>8713755
Lel I love people who get hysterical about postmodernism despite not understanding it

>>8712537
>What is survivor bias?

>>8713800
How does that apply here?

>>8712537
"When the philosopher hides, know then the truth is being hidden as well."

>>8713807
The scientists on the left do not represent what was popular at the time, but what we from our modern perspective judge as worth remembering.
In a hundred years no one will remember Bill Nye.

It's like saying that music used to be much better, and then comparing an exceptional artist from 30 years ago to an average artist from today.

Wasn't Feynman rather against philosophy?

>>8713687
what the fuck are you even talking about nerd?
remember you are completely dependent on us productive members of society if you wanna keep playing scientist. bow down your head and get back to work scrub

>>8712537
>MUH PARTICLE-NESS
>MUH PERCEPTION ALTERS REALITY (Electron Diffraction™)

Has anyone read "physics and philosophy" by Heisenberg? I got half way through and gradually stopped reading but his ideas are very interesting. As an undergrad I found his description of the measurement problem and the copenhagen interpretation very useful

Everything anybody says anywhere is recorded now, and simple little "nuggets" of half-truths are what get circulated.

Compared to even 30 years ago, the only shit anybody wrote down as a quote was the deep and profound.

>>8714509
Not really, people wrote letters containing stupid shit to each other constantly.

>>8713929
Einstein was super popular in his life.

>>8712537
Most people are more stupid that they were decades ago. If cause and effect, then the chemicals in the environment has likely caused considerable neurological damage. Still, some people are learning: it's a matter of gravitating to the positive people and avoiding (not ignoring) stupid dangerous people. Ignoring people (the ignorant people) get themselves killed because they refused to look and pay attention to their surroundings. It's probably because they're afraid of their abilities and communication skill.

Man this is great.

'Cause I know I run rhetorical circles around 99% of 4chan but wouldn't dare try to act intellectually superior to Richard Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss.

So right now I'm imagining some thirty year old guy, jerking off to hentai, playing a few games of WoW and then falling asleep while thinking 'tomorrow I'll start reading and with my superman brain I'll be considered the smartest guy on Earth before the end of the decade' when in reality his pattern of shitposting, masturbating and fantasy escapism is too established in habit for him to ever actually contribute anything of intellectual value to the world.

>>8715923
(You)

Sad!

>>8715923
I'm sure you can talk in circles for hours, anon.
I'm also sure you're proud of that