When people make these comments about string theory, are they at the forefront of quantum physics theory and have spent years on modern string theory? Or did they just watch a YouTube video and then keep parroting this?

▲

the__alchemist 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You could reductio ad-absurdum this logic quite broadly. We all form beliefs about the world and its aspects, and almost always through fallible sources. Should one be confident about ones of questionable provenance? I say no. But forming beliefs from the information we have is a useful skill.

	▲	fragmede 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		In the age of infinite bullshit generators, the even more useful skill is being able to say "I don't know." Or "I'm not qualified to have a useful opinion on this so I'm just not going to say anything." I could write a bunch of stuff about my personal opinions on string theory and waste everyone's time, or I could just shut up and not be a human stoichastic parrot.

▲

nullbio 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This isn't a great argument. Researchers who do not think string theory is good are not going to spend years on it. There are plenty of experts that dismiss string theory. I have no skin in the game, and don't care either way, fwiw.

▲

OroPla 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I also just keep parroting that the Earth is not flat and a bunch of other things I've been told and then never questioned, since it seems to make sense.

When the flath-earth craze started I've been trying to at least get that bit actually personally verified. Haven't managed to do it to this day, though. So I'll just keep parroting various things without properly understanding them.

C'est la vie.

	▲	bhaak 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Your drive to verify must be very low then. There are hundreds of small logic reasonings or even experiments with which you can easily prove that a flat earth model is at least very complicated or even impossible. Explaining Moon phases gets very complicated in any flat earth model. With binoculars you can see the shadows of craters on the moon's terminator. Or the phases of Venus whereas Mars doesn't have any. Timezones are ridiculously hard to explain on a flat earth. A proper theory must explain all of them and no flat earth model can do that. A round Earth OTOH easily does.

▲

lokar 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Or the just read Woit, uh, 20 years ago now, “not even wrong”.

▲

tcp_handshaker 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sabine has been at the forefront and has the goods: https://youtu.be/1mgxuVVUz40

And for the inevitable critics of Sabine...maybe Leonard Susskind is good enough for you: https://youtu.be/2p_Hlm6aCok

	▲	cauch 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The error with this approach is that every single physics theory gets exactly the same criticisms. You can take any of the theories that Hossenfelder would spend time on instead of the ones she does not like, and you would find (basically) a similar percentage of physicists saying it's a mistake to continue in this direction. In other terms: for each physics theory, on 100 physicists, you have 5 physicists saying it is a mistake to continue working on it (number made up for illustration, and there is probably some variations, but you get the gist). You took one theory and found few physicists saying it is a mistake to continue working on it. You conclude, incorrectly, that it means this theory is fundamentally differently treated as any other theories. (on top of that, it is unfortunate that Hossenfelder later screw up her image by doing way too much mistakes that someone reliable would not do)