It goes beyond "feeling". Without adequate understanding, you can't penetrate further and move the science forward. Calculations alone are simply not enough.
As the philosopher of science Paul Feyrabend wrote and made the convincing case in his book Against Method:
"Science is an essentially anarchic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives."
"The consistency condition which demands that new hypotheses agree with accepted theories is unreasonable because it preserves the older theory, and not the better theory."
"Science is neither a single tradition, nor the best tradition there is, except for people who have become accustomed to its presence, its benefits and its disadvantages. In a democracy, it should be separated from the state just as churches are now separated from the state."
"As the philosopher of science Paul Feyrabend wrote and made the convincing case in his book Against Method"
Convincing case? I think not.
Feyrabend is about the worst of the philosophers of science, and that's saying something[0]. He forms part of the tradition of humanities scholars who feel they have something of insight and utility to add to understanding science, but who offer insufficient evidence to match the claims they make.
It's with value-vacuum and nonsense statements like this:
"Science is an essentially anarchic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives."
and this:
"Science is neither a single tradition, nor the best tradition there is, except for people who have become accustomed to its presence, its benefits and its disadvantages. In a democracy, it should be separated from the state just as churches are now separated from the state."
that these people trade in. What does this even mean? Where is the actual evidence to support such claims?
Science is far from an 'anarchic enterprise'. It has the most rigidly regulated mechanisms for knowledge procurement and knowledge dissemination available to us.
Further, science is a single tradition (underpinned by the scientific method) and it is the best tradition we have; no other field of human endeavour has progressed as far in 2,500 years as science has. This is in sharp contrast to Feyrabend's own field, philosophy, where such a claim cannot be sustained.
[0] Popper is easily the least-worst of this group.
> rigidly regulated mechanisms for knowledge procurement and knowledge dissemination available to us.
Exactly.
And the DSL in which science should be written as much as possible in order to make scientific results as reproducible as possible (which includes spelling out as many underlying assumptions as possible) is called mathematics, which in recent years has been improved into formal mathematics that is mechanically checkable through (interactive and automatic) proof assistants. This 2.5k year old human endeavour of improving science has not yet finished. The next big milestone, which I expect to see completed before the year 2200, is to finish the mechanisation of all existing mathematics.
> Science is far from an 'anarchic enterprise'. It has the most rigidly regulated mechanisms for knowledge procurement and knowledge dissemination available to us.
> Further, science is a single tradition
Have these rigidly regulated mechanisms been in place for 2500 years? Because if not, that seems like the sort of thing that Feyrabend might have meant by saying science isn't a single tradition.
Have these rigidly regulated mechanisms been in place for 2500 years? Because if not, that seems like the sort of thing that Feyrabend might have meant by saying science isn't a single tradition.
The programme/process of Science - the overarching belief that the natural world can be understood through rational means - has itself gone through numerous process improvements during those 2500 years; yet it remains the same endeavour and retains the same core impetus.
Okay, but it seems like "science isn't a single tradition" is a perfectly reasonable way to describe this state of affairs. So when you ask "what does this even mean" I think there's a fairly straightforward answer.
Good documentary on Iter's claims by investigative journalist, Steve Krivit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnikAFWDhNw Shows that the public claims are not just an exaggeration but outright fraud for the purpose of getting more funding. It's one thing to say that the purpose is experimental research, it's another entirely to claim that it will produce net energy, which is not backed any evidence or even a reasonable scientific analysis. There's a long history of fraud in fusion research, it's really important the public is well educated on the history here.
There's a long history of fraud and misleading / sensational claims made my companies in the fusion space. The industry is nowhere near break-even (total energy into system == total energy out). ITER is a great example today. This is covered well with in-depth research by journalist Steven B. Krivit. He's put together a documentary exposing ITER's many false and dubious claims that I recommend watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnikAFWDhNw&t=8s
There are two different definitions of breakeven, and science journalism is usually not good at making those distinct (and yeah, often the press releases from the institutions don't help). "Scientific" breakeven is the first milestone we'll hit, and that's what NIF is claiming to be close to. You're referring to what's known as "engineering" breakeven, which is harder to achieve and requires yet higher fusion yields. Unless you hear otherwise, assume that anyone talking about breakeven means "scientific" breakeven -- if they'd achieved "engineering" breakeven, they'd make sure to spell that out!
"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer
We are currently in the second stage for Bitcoin. Based on the comments here, in social media and from news outlets, seems more time is needed before its better understood and appreciated broadly.
I and many others continue to believe a sound money settlement layer technology divorced from arbitrary government intervention is of enormous value to society. One need only look at wtfhappenedin1971.com to understand why. But until then, narratives that cherrypick data and paint Bitcoin in a negative light will continue to dominate.
Patience. HODL. And continue to hope for a better world on the other side of all of this.
> One need only look at wtfhappenedin1971.com to understand why.
A bunch of scary-looking graphs haphazardly thrown together with huge ads abutting either end is not an argument. This comment is guilty of its own accusation: cherry-picking data to paint a dishonest narrative.
Of course these charts are only a starting point of inquiry. Several scholars, philosophers and intellectuals have both predicted such trends and provided rigorous intellectual analysis of their underlying causes.
The term competence seems to be throwing people off, which I can understand but I think the point here is very insightful. It's important to separate those with a hero complex from those that are more morally sincere. Greater moral sincerity means you're more concerned with solving the problem than being the one to solve the problem. It's not about you, it's about the problem and seeing it solved. I think this is an especially relevant point in today's culture.
Minor point, which always frustrates me when people say it. "proven through scientifical consensus". Nothing in the history of science has ever been "proven" by consensus. We get proof when observation matches theoretical prediction.
Thinking in Systems by Donella Meadows. I used to think of the world mostly in terms of dramatic events, heroes and villains. I now mostly see systems and incentives, patterns and trends.
