So, in conclusion, is this correct:
about 5% of the "picture" comes from actual data, 95% is interpolation based on a physics model that holds for sure far from a black hole, but nobody can be sure if it holds near a black hole. The resulting "picture" resembles our idea of a black hole (based on the model) and thus we celebrate that we found it?
[Not trolling] Is the black hole picture actually a case of confirmation bias?
-
-
It’s actually worse than that. They created an algorithm to merge the data tovgive thrm 5 percent of the picture. Then another algorithm to extrapolate what the other 95 percent was based on their assumptions that their theory is correct ... then they cheer that their theories are correct.
I agree. They used algorithms to merge data from telescopes all over the world to create a fuzzy image of an orange ring. A more accurate description would be “here is a rough image of what we think a black hole might look like.”
Totally ignorant, you sound like a sociologist evaluating an economics paper about income inequality.
-
My boyfriend is a PhD student in physics at a "HRM" program. I showed this thread to him and he LOL'ed. I hope he still loves me. Haha
Your boyfriend needs to read basic philosophy of science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory-ladenness
And then do some serious thinking about how theory-ladenness applies when you are talking about reconstructing images from a variety of different data sources where all the post-processing you do is only justified in terms of theories which are themselves ultimately only supported by indirect evidence.
The OPs concerns are entirely valid.
-
My boyfriend is a PhD student in physics at a "HRM" program. I showed this thread to him and he LOL'ed. I hope he still loves me. Haha
Your boyfriend needs to read basic philosophy of science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory-ladenness
And then do some serious thinking about how theory-ladenness applies when you are talking about reconstructing images from a variety of different data sources where all the post-processing you do is only justified in terms of theories which are themselves ultimately only supported by indirect evidence.
The OPs concerns are entirely valid.Okay cool, write them up and submit them to a physics journal. Until you've done that I call BS. This sounds like pontification from a point of ignorance.
-
Okay cool, write them up and submit them to a physics journal. Until you've done that I call BS. This sounds like pontification from a point of ignorance.
Most physicists are arrogant idiots who literally believe that seeing some squiggles on a camera lets them make serious statements about what the universe was doing 13 billion years ago during the first few seconds after it was created. This comes at a point where almost every other science is going through a period of epistemic humility and reevaluating how much of its published literature is actually true.
Compare the amount of knowledge which scientists in any other field claim to have, with what physicists believe they have. Geologist still have no idea how to predict earthquakes, climate scientists can barely predict which direction the average temperature is going to move in over a 5 year period, biologists can barely predict more than 1-2% of any human trait from genome level data, and yet physicists think they can accurately predict what happened during the first few seconds of universe formation over 13 billion years ago. Yeah, okay.
theoretical physics and cosmology is mostly over-interpreted crap with hilariously broad and overreaching theories built on what is ultimately a very, very weak and indirect evidence base (literally 'squiggles on a screen' in most cases)
-
Okay cool, write them up and submit them to a physics journal. Until you've done that I call BS. This sounds like pontification from a point of ignorance.
Most physicists are arrogant idiots who literally believe that seeing some squiggles on a camera lets them make serious statements about what the universe was doing 13 billion years ago during the first few seconds after it was created. This comes at a point where almost every other science is going through a period of epistemic humility and reevaluating how much of its published literature is actually true.
Compare the amount of knowledge which scientists in any other field claim to have, with what physicists believe they have. Geologist still have no idea how to predict earthquakes, climate scientists can barely predict which direction the average temperature is going to move in over a 5 year period, biologists can barely predict more than 1-2% of any human trait from genome level data, and yet physicists think they can accurately predict what happened during the first few seconds of universe formation over 13 billion years ago. Yeah, okay.
theoretical physics and cosmology is mostly over-interpreted crap with hilariously broad and overreaching theories built on what is ultimately a very, very weak and indirect evidence base (literally 'squiggles on a screen' in most cases)Maybe you're right, I have no idea if you actually know what you are talking about or have the understanding of those issues for your critique to have merit.
But this does sound a lot like the critiques of economics based on total ignorance of our field. Again, the point isn't that all of those critiques are wrong, but many of them are based on basic misunderstandings. So that's why I say your critique would have some credibility if it was evaluated by physicists, not economists.
-
...I showed this thread to him and he LOL'ed.
...
The OPs concerns are entirely valid....This sounds like pontification from a point of ignorance.
Someone raises some concerns. Instead of addressing the concerns you (or your hypothetical bf) laugh at them. Someone explains why those concerns are valid. Instead of replying to that you accuse him of pontificating from a point of ignorance. It seems to me that you are the only one pontificating from a point of ignorance.
-
...I showed this thread to him and he LOL'ed.
...
The OPs concerns are entirely valid....This sounds like pontification from a point of ignorance.
Someone raises some concerns. Instead of addressing the concerns you (or your hypothetical bf) laugh at them. Someone explains why those concerns are valid. Instead of replying to that you accuse him of pontificating from a point of ignorance. It seems to me that you are the only one pontificating from a point of ignorance.
Makes vague critique and are vaguely dismissed = TRIGGERED
-
<
Maybe you're right, I have no idea if you actually know what you are talking about or have the understanding of those issues for your critique to have merit.
But this does sound a lot like the critiques of economics based on total ignorance of our field. Again, the point isn't that all of those critiques are wrong, but many of them are based on basic misunderstandings. So that's why I say your critique would have some credibility if it was evaluated by physicists, not economists.Physicists have no problem criticising other fields from a position of ignorance (they are notorious for this), so they can hardly cry when outsiders point out how stupid they are being with their over-interpreted "this camera image contains a squiggle in the top left corner therefore the multiverse consists of one billion parallel universes all constantly splitting in half also we live inside a hologram and most of the universe consists of unobservable dark matter " nonsense.
-
Someone raises some concerns. Instead of addressing the concerns you (or your hypothetical bf) laugh at them. Someone explains why those concerns are valid. Instead of replying to that you accuse him of pontificating from a point of ignorance. It seems to me that you are the only one pontificating from a point of ignorance.
Makes vague critique and are vaguely dismissed = TRIGGERED
If you re-read your own posts and you're actually an academic, you'll realize that you're not an example of intellectual honesty. I hope your research to be better than this. And btw you're actually proving the point of those that say that it's pointless to argue with a woman. Maybe they right in the end.
-
Criticism of economics is totally sound. We don't know dipsheyt about human behaviour or how the economy works. As far as we know demand curves can have positive slope
Okay cool, write them up and submit them to a physics journal. Until you've done that I call BS. This sounds like pontification from a point of ignorance.
Most physicists are arrogant idiots who literally believe that seeing some squiggles on a camera lets them make serious statements about what the universe was doing 13 billion years ago during the first few seconds after it was created. This comes at a point where almost every other science is going through a period of epistemic humility and reevaluating how much of its published literature is actually true.
Compare the amount of knowledge which scientists in any other field claim to have, with what physicists believe they have. Geologist still have no idea how to predict earthquakes, climate scientists can barely predict which direction the average temperature is going to move in over a 5 year period, biologists can barely predict more than 1-2% of any human trait from genome level data, and yet physicists think they can accurately predict what happened during the first few seconds of universe formation over 13 billion years ago. Yeah, okay.
theoretical physics and cosmology is mostly over-interpreted crap with hilariously broad and overreaching theories built on what is ultimately a very, very weak and indirect evidence base (literally 'squiggles on a screen' in most cases)Maybe you're right, I have no idea if you actually know what you are talking about or have the understanding of those issues for your critique to have merit.
But this does sound a lot like the critiques of economics based on total ignorance of our field. Again, the point isn't that all of those critiques are wrong, but many of them are based on basic misunderstandings. So that's why I say your critique would have some credibility if it was evaluated by physicists, not economists.