I mean that even if they're aware of something, they'll find some way to say that the other person is wrong about it, which can end up making them wrong about basic things. Take the top comment about the speed of light being "wrong" as an example: the author said "around 300," meaning it's rounded, and rounding 299 to 300 is correct rounding, yet people say he's wrong, which ironically makes them wrong.

It doesn't necessarily have to be connected with a philosophy degree, but I think philosophy is an easy target since it talks about scientific fields, and it's especially easy to say "ha! This is all wrong — such an inaccurate philosopher's take!"

EDIT: Just saw that the commenter I referenced said it was just a simple mistake, so this wasn't a great example.

>In Bohr’s view, the world doesn’t have definite properties unless we’re looking at it.

The fundamental issue here (the relationship between philosophy and physics, quantum or otherwise) comes down to an over-generalized notion of "unless we are looking at it". Bohr was speaking from a predisposition of metaphysics, and this confuses many people. Every particle "looks at" every other particle it interacts with; the conscious effort of measurement is irrelevant. The moon does not cease to exist when we are not seeing it, but we cannot "know" that with absolute certainty, because any effort to determine if it is true would involve seeing whether the moon exists. This is a fundamental property of metaphysics (indeed, the only fundamental property of metaphysics, and the sum total of metaphysics) called metaphysical uncertainty. Nevertheless, to adopt the idea that the moon only exists because we see it is insane.

Physics doesn't challenge reality, it merely illuminates it; if your reality is challenged by quantum mechanics, it is because your beliefs about reality were inaccurate. The only thing challenged by the results of quantum physics is how we explain things; things were, are, and will be just as they always have been (objects emerge from some quantum interactions, life emerges from some objects, and consciousness emerges from some life) regardless of how we explain them.

Alright tinfoil hatter. Totally wasnt trying to tell you that you need to read carefully what researchers publish, that peer review is not the same thing as doing a meta study and all of this is separate from what the process of the medical community and drug administration selecting their treatment methods and drugs.

The meta study is major in the sense that it debunks seratonin theory altogether, but there were many psychologists and therapists who already knew that. Even the article points out that this myth was/is chiefly believed by the general public. Regardless of this, the drugs go through a drug trial, which is different from all of this; they worked for a certain amount of people, so it passed the test, maybe not for the reasons we understand, but if it works, then it works and despite this study its not wise to force these drugs off the shelf when they work in drug trials.

You, not understanding the nuance of these things only proves your ignorance. The hysteria is just cherry on top.

>1. Some type of ego stroking or defense going on ("I have a STEM degree, this person only has a philosophy degree

Did you mean the reverse? Any physics major with quantum mechanics coursework should be well aware of entanglement, it's arguably the most important feature.

The whole serotonin theory of depression is false but the $20,000,000,000 SSRI industry marches on. It's a very clear case of corrupt science.

Worshiping science is unscientific and leads to immoral outcomes, you should stop doing that.

>Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation.
>
>That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity.
>
>In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time. This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things.
>
>You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

It's a genuinely interesting phenomenon, and I've wondered about it for a while. Every time I see any type of post that mentions physics in any capacity on this sub, I almost inevitably see a bunch of short comments saying things like "bullshit," "_____ Deepak Chopra ____," etc. My take is that there's either:

1. Some type of ego stroking or defense going on ("I have a STEM degree, this person only has a philosophy degree, thus I can feel good about myself by demonstrating how much more knowledgeable I am than them.").
2. A fear of an unknown reality that stokes strong feelings against anything that could fundamentally change our view of reality. Sort of like the driver behind conspiratorial thinking.
3. People that are so anti-religion that they'll decry anything that has even remotely mystical undertones or could in some way lend itself to a mystical interpretation, even if that interpretation is ultimately based in physicalism.
4. Simply being unable to understand the material.

I say this not to rag on anyone here but because it's a genuinely interesting and important social phenomenon. This is essentially the same mechanism that Thomas Kuhn wrote about in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions — when new science comes out, people think of it as nonsense because it goes against the current paradigm. Of course, some things that go against the current paradigm are nonsense. But when you extrapolate the comments here to an academic setting, it kind of serves as an interesting example of the broader social mechanisms that can hinder fruitful discussion and progress.

EDIT: Reading through more comments, I think 3 is the most likely cause. People don't take articles like this at face value because it's possible to use them for woo, so they're preemptively shot down. That ends up meaning that anything that isn't a blatantly pro-physicalism argument gets these types of comments because anything else leaves room for other possibilities and can be used to support woo.

[removed]

[removed]

well ackshyually

It does not support your conclusions, that is the problem.

[removed]

[deleted]

I don't come to this sub much but the overly dismissive comments here are really bizarre.

Scientists won a Nobel prize literally just this year for experimentally proving spooky action at a distance.

[removed]

It's off by .0007% so this article is clearly trash!

What parts of the article did you have problems with? None of it seemed very controversial from our current understanding of physics.

Randomness does not explain libertarian free will - agreed.

But concluding that libertarian free will must therefore be explained by the non-existence of randomness is not a valid logical step.

If everything in the universe is causally determined, then that does not explain libertarian free will either.

In my view, libertarian free will is self contradictory, and is compatible with neither a deterministic nor a nondeterministic universe.

That’s… that’s the correct speed of light?

What is funny is that it actually is the other way around, determinism entails free will, I choose one thing over the other because of reasons, if non-determisim was the reality then I would ultimately choose one thing over the other because of randomnes, and that is the opposite of free will. If the choosing is done via randomness then there is no choice making agent.

[deleted]

Yes the last post was my original opinion backed by the study excerpt I helpfully posted for your education previous to that.

Welcome to philosophy.

For much more detailed explorations of the weirdness of quantum theory, I recommend Carlos Rovelli's work. He's very capable of rendering complex concepts for non-physicists, while still recognizing how strange and poetic the implications are from philosophical perspectives.

Well, a God's eye-view is still necessarily possible. Just because your mind wants a single, stable version of events doesn't mean it's a necessary condition for God's understanding.

Love that book. Mandelbrot gave a speech at my college & this was the only book I had on hand, but he graciously autographed it for me anyway.