8 ms·

When plate tectonics was first proposed the low quality of the original models of the underlying mechanism led many very good geophysicists and geologists to re

When plate tectonics was first proposed the low quality of the original models of the underlying mechanism led many very good geophysicists and geologists to reject it or to express well founded skepticism of the model. They knew the details and subtleties and the original models didn't deal well with them the proposal was nonetheless correct grosso modo and with time more adequate models of the underlying mechanisms were proposed and a more nuanced view of the model came into place. Now it is considered well established. One should consider the possibility that Gil Kalai is a similar sort of skeptic making well founded objections to weak arguments, but that nonetheless in the long run the extraordinary claims will turn out to be more or less correct. It's true that those involved in plate tectonics didn't have Bitcoin to sell you, but they were looking for oil.

KK7NIL 2y ago
No theory can stand on steady ground without the critics checking its foundations. It's a shame we cast their role in the history of science in such a negative light, as if science was a game to be won or lost instead of a collective process where a clear path forward only appears in hindsight (only to be proven wrong again sometime later) . Oh yeah, and that anecdote you told about tectonic plates screams survivorship bias; that's the problem with anecdotes.
- IshKebab 2y ago
  I think his point was essentially that it's possible to have technically correct nitpicks that are irrelevant. You see this all the time from naysayers.
  - Veen 2y ago
    You also see institutions and researchers exaggerating and confabulating all the time, so the sceptics are a useful corrective, especially if they happen to be right.
  - KK7NIL 2y ago
    I understood that. My point is that they aren't irrelevant, they help drive the new theory forward. Galileo's initial results could not predict many things that the old geo-centric models could predict for centuries. This is almost inevitable with a groundbreaking new framework, but the skeptics aren't wrong to point it out, it's up to the supporters to show it can do what old model can do and more, which Galileo was never quite able to show in his lifetime, if I recall correctly. Again, it's easy to look back and talk about how these "irrelevant nitpicks" of tectonic plates and helio-centrism were "wrong" or "irrelevant", but that's just not how science works, you don't get to skip over the details when you present a theory that undermines everything we know, that's just crackpot behavior.
    - rcxdude 2y ago
      Indeed. Galileo was up against a model that was much more useful and matched better with the available evidence and understanding: Often it's described as Copernicus vs Ptolemy, but while Galileo's observations conclusively destroyed Ptolemy by showing the other planets rotated around the sun, Brahe had a model where that was true, but the sun revolved around the earth, and it was functionally identical to the Copernican model except that it didn't require the earth to rotate and it was easier to calculate because it used fewer epicycles. It was Kepler that actually fixed the problem (before telescopes, even!) with epicycle-based models by making the paths ellipses, and it took the modern understanding of velocity, acceleration, and momentum which Newton perfected (neatly deriving Kepler's ellipses as well), along with experiments by a few other scientists demonstrating the coriolis effect on dropped objects to actually produce direct evidence of the earth's rotation and address the objections of Galileo's detractors (And Foucault hammered it home with his pendulum). Some of Galileo's contemporaries attempted similar experiments but failed because the effect was too small.
- ilya_m 2y ago
  > Oh yeah, and that anecdote you told about tectonic plates screams survivorship bias; that's the problem with anecdotes. Very good point. For every tectonic plates theory or heliocentric system or H. pylori causing ulcers there are thousands of claims that are plain wrong. Statistically speaking, knowledgeable critics acting in good faith (eg, not having strong conflict of interests) are correct with the overwhelming probability.
  - Lerc 2y ago
    I'd add to this and say the probability being against a theory creates a risk of less than thorough dismissals of claims. You get this all the time with perpetual motion machines. The near certainty of the claim being false leads to confident dismissals that go 'blah, blah, laws of physics, blah blah thermodynamics, therefore can't happen' The real question to be asking about a claim of a perpetual motion machine is 'Where does the new energy come into being?'. Citing laws of physics won't help you because any claim to have made a perpetual motion machine is implicitly claiming to be a proof by counterexample that one of those laws is wrong.
    - nkrisc 2y ago
      > Citing laws of physics won't help you because any claim to have made a perpetual motion machine is implicitly claiming to be a proof by counterexample that one of those laws is wrong. Citing the laws of physics in this case is the shorthand way to point the overwhelming number of proofs by example that the laws are correct.
      - Lerc 2y ago
        It doesn't matter how many examples you have for a law. A single genuine counterexample counts as a disproof. If your law is all liquids flow off a ducks back. Water off a ducks back does not prove it. Acid off a ducks back disproves it. https://i.imgflip.com/7waajp.png https://i.imgflip.com/7waajp.png I don't think it is a matter of a shorthand. I think it is because humans have a tendency to express a strong opinion when they intend to express that a weaker opinion is strongly held. Citing laws of physics does not say "Your perpetual motion machine won't work" but rather "I am confident that your perpetual motion machine will be shown to not work".
- bigbacaloa 2y ago
  [dead]
GTP 2y ago
I still see a difference here: the blog post author isn't claiming that we will never have quantum computers. What he is disputing, is Google's claim that a specific quantum device that they have is already able to perform several orders of magnitude better than classical computers. Arguing that this is false, is different from arguing about what will happen in the future.
- gizmondo 2y ago
  > I still see a difference here: the blog post author isn't claiming that we will never have quantum computers. He's very much claiming this, e.g. https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~deloera/TEACHING/VIDEOS/Kalai-Lectures/hkD.pdf https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~deloera/TEACHING/VIDEOS/Kalai-...

KK7NIL 2y ago

No theory can stand on steady ground without the critics checking its foundations. It's a shame we cast their role in the history of science in such a negative light, as if science was a game to be won or lost instead of a collective process where a clear path forward only appears in hindsight (only to be proven wrong again sometime later) . Oh yeah, and that anecdote you told about tectonic plates screams survivorship bias; that's the problem with anecdotes.

IshKebab 2y ago
I think his point was essentially that it's possible to have technically correct nitpicks that are irrelevant. You see this all the time from naysayers.
- Veen 2y ago
  You also see institutions and researchers exaggerating and confabulating all the time, so the sceptics are a useful corrective, especially if they happen to be right.
- KK7NIL 2y ago
  I understood that. My point is that they aren't irrelevant, they help drive the new theory forward. Galileo's initial results could not predict many things that the old geo-centric models could predict for centuries. This is almost inevitable with a groundbreaking new framework, but the skeptics aren't wrong to point it out, it's up to the supporters to show it can do what old model can do and more, which Galileo was never quite able to show in his lifetime, if I recall correctly. Again, it's easy to look back and talk about how these "irrelevant nitpicks" of tectonic plates and helio-centrism were "wrong" or "irrelevant", but that's just not how science works, you don't get to skip over the details when you present a theory that undermines everything we know, that's just crackpot behavior.
  - rcxdude 2y ago
    Indeed. Galileo was up against a model that was much more useful and matched better with the available evidence and understanding: Often it's described as Copernicus vs Ptolemy, but while Galileo's observations conclusively destroyed Ptolemy by showing the other planets rotated around the sun, Brahe had a model where that was true, but the sun revolved around the earth, and it was functionally identical to the Copernican model except that it didn't require the earth to rotate and it was easier to calculate because it used fewer epicycles. It was Kepler that actually fixed the problem (before telescopes, even!) with epicycle-based models by making the paths ellipses, and it took the modern understanding of velocity, acceleration, and momentum which Newton perfected (neatly deriving Kepler's ellipses as well), along with experiments by a few other scientists demonstrating the coriolis effect on dropped objects to actually produce direct evidence of the earth's rotation and address the objections of Galileo's detractors (And Foucault hammered it home with his pendulum). Some of Galileo's contemporaries attempted similar experiments but failed because the effect was too small.
ilya_m 2y ago
> Oh yeah, and that anecdote you told about tectonic plates screams survivorship bias; that's the problem with anecdotes. Very good point. For every tectonic plates theory or heliocentric system or H. pylori causing ulcers there are thousands of claims that are plain wrong. Statistically speaking, knowledgeable critics acting in good faith (eg, not having strong conflict of interests) are correct with the overwhelming probability.
- Lerc 2y ago
  I'd add to this and say the probability being against a theory creates a risk of less than thorough dismissals of claims. You get this all the time with perpetual motion machines. The near certainty of the claim being false leads to confident dismissals that go 'blah, blah, laws of physics, blah blah thermodynamics, therefore can't happen' The real question to be asking about a claim of a perpetual motion machine is 'Where does the new energy come into being?'. Citing laws of physics won't help you because any claim to have made a perpetual motion machine is implicitly claiming to be a proof by counterexample that one of those laws is wrong.
  - nkrisc 2y ago
    > Citing laws of physics won't help you because any claim to have made a perpetual motion machine is implicitly claiming to be a proof by counterexample that one of those laws is wrong. Citing the laws of physics in this case is the shorthand way to point the overwhelming number of proofs by example that the laws are correct.
    - Lerc 2y ago
      It doesn't matter how many examples you have for a law. A single genuine counterexample counts as a disproof. If your law is all liquids flow off a ducks back. Water off a ducks back does not prove it. Acid off a ducks back disproves it. https://i.imgflip.com/7waajp.png https://i.imgflip.com/7waajp.png I don't think it is a matter of a shorthand. I think it is because humans have a tendency to express a strong opinion when they intend to express that a weaker opinion is strongly held. Citing laws of physics does not say "Your perpetual motion machine won't work" but rather "I am confident that your perpetual motion machine will be shown to not work".
bigbacaloa 2y ago
[dead]

GTP 2y ago

I still see a difference here: the blog post author isn't claiming that we will never have quantum computers. What he is disputing, is Google's claim that a specific quantum device that they have is already able to perform several orders of magnitude better than classical computers. Arguing that this is false, is different from arguing about what will happen in the future.

gizmondo 2y ago
> I still see a difference here: the blog post author isn't claiming that we will never have quantum computers. He's very much claiming this, e.g. https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~deloera/TEACHING/VIDEOS/Kalai-Lectures/hkD.pdf https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~deloera/TEACHING/VIDEOS/Kalai-...