site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   36358 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 10, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Einstein was a spiritual scientist

Mr. Albert Einstein (well-known for his ‘imagination is more important than knowledge’ quote) had this to say, in 1920, when reminiscing about the birth of his relativity theory in 1907:

There occurred to me the ‘glücklichste Gedanke meines Leben’, the happiest thought of my life ... for an observer falling freely from the roof of a house there exists – at least in his immediate surroundings – no gravitational field. Indeed, if the observer drops some bodies then those remain relative to him in a state of rest or uniform motion, independent of their particular chemical or physical nature (in this consideration the air resistance is, of course, ignored). The observer therefore has the right to interpret his state as ‘at rest’.

The observer (irregardless of the ... um ... the ‘right’ to subjectively interpret what is actually occurring as being a state of rest) is, of course, objectively falling at a rate of thirty two feet per second per second because of the very gravitational field Mr. Albert Einstein somewhat solipsistically intuited/ imagined did not exist for such a person.

I am using the word ‘solipsism’ in its ‘self-centredness’ meaning (and not its more usual ‘the view or theory that only the self really exists or can be known’ meaning) ... as in ‘she/he thinks the universe revolves around him/her’.

Surely it is somewhat solipsistic to intuit/ imagine that, just because one has ‘the right to interpret’ the state of being ‘in motion’ to be a state of ‘at rest’ that it is then so in reality? One could interpret the state of motion known as ‘falling’ as being a state of motion called ‘flying’, for instance, yet interpretation does not miraculously turn fantasy into fact ... unless one be a theoretical physicist in the hallowed halls of modern-day academia, of course, where causality is no longer applied.

Put simply: if there be, in fact, no gravitational field there is no movement towards the surface of the earth to be interpreted any whichways at all.

As Mr. Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity was born out of an insight which he described as being the happiest thought in his life – that a person falling from a roof has the right to interpret their state of motion as being a state of rest as, for them, gravity does not exist (at least not in their immediate surroundings) – there is every reason to say it is him, not time, that his theory is all about.

I say the relativity theory would be better named the subjectivity theory.

Given that Mr. Albert Einstein proposes that space and time are inextricably linked in a ‘space-time’ continuum, when space vanishes upon removing all matter from it, according to Mr. Albert Einstein’s brilliant mind, time must cease to exist too. If so, then what he now has, logically, is a ‘formless and timeless and spaceless nothingness’ wherein human beings have no actual existence as a flesh and blood body. Thus, apart from the unanswered question of consciousness-without-a-body, is this not unlike a description of the Nirvanic ‘Sunyata’? But, then again, he is reported as saying:

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion (...) if there’s any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism ... (https://web.archive.org/web/20000511201604/https://stripe.colorado.edu/~judy/einstein/god.html)

The only problem with Mr. Albert Einstein’s theory is that it is just that ... a theory. You cannot ‘remove all matter from space’ no matter how many bull-dozers and dump-trucks you bring into action. Where would you put all that matter? Dump it somewhere outside of the universe? There must be an ‘outside’ for Mr. Albert Einstein to even think up this nonsense ... more abstract hypothesising once again.

Believing in Mr. Albert Einstein amounts to a religious-like certitude for the faithful.

  • -11

This isn't a sneer or anything, but before I try to engage with this I want to know if this is a truly held thought or a parody of some of the other contrarian takedowns that get posted on here.

Speaking of parodies, I've enjoyed this one, similar vibe:

A Modest Proposal for the Non-existence of Exoplanets: The Expansion of Stellar Physics to Include Squars

The search for exoplanets has become a focal point of astronomical research, captivating public attention and driving scientific inquiry; however, the rush to confirm exoplanet discoveries has often overlooked potential alternative explanations leading to a scientific consensus that is overly reliant on untested assumptions and limited data. We argue that the evidence in support of exoplanet observation is not necessarily definitive and that alternative interpretations are not only possible, but necessary. Our conclusion is therefore concise: exoplanets do not exist. Here, we present the framework for a novel type of cuboid star, or squar, which can precisely reproduce the full range of observed phenomena in stellar light curves, including the trapezoidal flux deviations (TFDs) often attributed to "exoplanets." In this discovery paper, we illustrate the power of the squellar model, showing that the light curve of the well-studied "exoplanet" WASP-12b can be reconstructed simply from a rotating squar with proportions $1:1/8:1$, without invoking ad-hoc planetary bodies. Our findings cast serious doubt on the validity of current "exoplanetary" efforts, which have largely ignored the potential role of squars and have instead blindly accepted the exoplanet hypothesis without sufficient critical scrutiny. In addition, we discuss the sociopolitical role of climate change in spurring the current exoplanet fervor which has lead to the speculative state of "exoplanetary science" today. We strongly urge the astronomical community to take our model proposal seriously and treat its severe ramifications with the utmost urgency to restore rationality to the field of astronomy.

It's a troll. He posted a few wacky top-level takes a few weeks ago promising to respond to comments later, and never did.

It's a good parody then; that is spot on in tone.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats