Can We Trust Our Basic Physics Knowledge in the Age of the Internet?

  • Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Fiction
In summary, it can be difficult for someone with only basic physics knowledge to differentiate between what is true and what is not, especially with the abundance of information available on the internet. While obvious errors made by "crackpots" may be easy to spot, it becomes more challenging when dealing with more complex or fringe topics. One suggestion is to stick with textbooks, as they have been subject to rigorous review and tend to be more reliable. However, even textbooks may not always be up to date or accurate. It is important to be cautious and check for references when encountering new ideas or unfamiliar sources. Ultimately, it is up to the individual to determine what to trust and mistrust, and to be critical of both opinions and facts presented
  • #1
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
20
Since a lot of information is passed left and right and the internet exists, how is one with only basic physics knowledge suppose to know what is true and what isn't? Obviously some 'crackpots' make it obvious they are wrong when they get even the most basic ideas wrong (like someone saying you can go >c is you go really fast and fire off a photon or something similar) but there are other instances where you don't really know at the basic level. I've seen book recommendations and non-recommendations and i wonder how one differentiates between saying a book is good vs. crap besides taking someones word for it. I mean you can't exactly go out and conduct a plethora of experiments at the basic level... so your inevitably relying on peoples ideas.

Does anyone understand what I'm saying? Its hard to think one way because people tell you its correct when we're talking about things you don't have a lot of real world experience with.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
My opinion is that you should stick with textbooks. This is a great place to look for help for mainstream subject matter, but when it comes to fringe, or marginal topics that are not well defined, where controversy may exist even at the highest levels, there is no way to know what to believe. In fact it gets even worse. When I finished college, I expected to have some basis by which to determine what are mainstream opinions, and what are fringe or unpopular minority opinions. But where do you look? The most basic answer is to look at how many papers are published wrt a particular theory or explanation. This as much as anything defines the "mainstream" position. But this alone is not enough in many cases. If you look at the measurement problem, for example, there are probably half a dozen schools of thought. And each seems to think that the other is nonsense, unsupported, highly speculative, or at least that the evidence clearly supports their position. If you happen to ask a physicist from one particular school of thought [how to explain the measurement problem], they may answer in such a way that one would think this is the only answer to be found; when in fact many other equally qualified people reject this explanation.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
It's never easy discerning fact from fantasy. The textbook version, as Ivan recommended, is an excellent place to start. You don't get to be textbook without having gone through trial by fire. Scientists are very critical of one another and tend to complain about the least little detail. Beyond that, you must chose what to trust and mistrust. You should, at least, slightly mistrust everything. When you encounter a new idea, you should check for references. If you never heard of the dude before, beware. On the other hand, papers by people who say things consistent with your hard earned knowledge of the subject, and are well regarded by the general public, tend to be worth listening to.
 
  • #4
Chronos said:
...check for references. If you never heard of the dude before, beware. On the other hand, papers by people who say things consistent with your hard earned knowledge of the subject, and are well regarded by the general public, tend to be worth listening to.

I agree, but even then you have to be careful about opinions and facts. There is an unfortunate standard in science that you state your case without qualifiers. This can often translate as an inadvertent form of misrepresentation; when only the experts can tell where the facts end, and the opinions begin. And the experts may not agree on even this point!
 
  • #5
Pengwuino said:
Since a lot of information is passed left and right and the internet exists, how is one with only basic physics knowledge suppose to know what is true and what isn't?
Last year someone linked to a paper that had a lot of references to "Schuman Frequencies." That sounded bogus to me, so I asked Ivan and he said, no, they were quite real and got me a link to an explanation. Asking someone here is usually a fair way to find out if it is valid or not.

As a matter of fact, though, I've also done a lot of garage experimenting to test the truth of basic things, especially concerning electricity and magnetism.
 
  • #6
I just noticed something that didn't come out quite right.

Ivan Seeking said:
My opinion is that you should stick with textbooks. This is a great place to look for help for mainstream subject matter...

By "this" I meant PF and other reputable internet resources. But when we get into any kind of gray area, it can be difficult for anyone but a physicist who specializes in that particular subject matter, to differentiate between opinion and facts. And again, even then their perception of the "correct" answers may be strongly slanted towards one particular interpretation of the established facts. Schumann Resonance, as Zooby mentioned, is not a gray area in that some places monitor the Schumann activity. We know beyond a doubt that it's there. But if you ask if the known universe began as the result of a cataclysm on an 11 dimensional hyper-surface, then we get into opinions very quickly.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Although I agree that textbooks are normally a good place to start, one thing that normally worries me about it is their age. If I pull out an old textbook, I often worry that the information given is outdated or has been proven incorrect since publication, and I'm never sure about how to go about making sure it's still accurate.
 
  • #8
No doubt! But as for being a good place to start, I know of very few people in this forum, like almost none, whose level of knowledge is beyond the most advanced textbooks for any given topic in physics; or related subjects.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
I didn't mean to imply textbooks were basic, merely that I feel it would be better to begin by reading textbooks, rather than journals and articles. In my experience, journals etc assume you already have a good understanding of the subject at hand, where as a textbook is more likely to start with the basics before moving on to new research on the matter.
 
  • #10
Ivan Seeking said:
But if you ask if the known universe began as the result of a cataclysm on an 11 dimensional hyper-surface, then we get into opinions very quickly.
In a case like this, if I were interested in the particular matter, I would pull out as many key concepts as seem to go into the theory and ask around about them trying to determine which parts of the theory are not in dispute, and then try to get a sense of where the theorizing begins.
 

1. How do you determine if a statement is a fact or fiction?

There are several ways to determine if a statement is a fact or fiction. One way is to research the statement and gather evidence from reliable sources to support or refute it. Another way is to use critical thinking skills to analyze the logic and reasoning behind the statement. Additionally, checking for biases and considering the credibility of the source can also help determine the validity of a statement.

2. Why is it important to be able to tell fact from fiction?

Being able to distinguish between fact and fiction is essential for making informed decisions and avoiding common misconceptions. In today's society, where information is easily accessible and constantly shared, it is crucial to be able to identify reliable information and avoid falling for false or misleading statements.

3. What are some common characteristics of fictional statements?

Fictional statements often lack evidence or logical reasoning to support them and may contain exaggerated or sensationalized claims. They may also rely on emotional appeals or play on personal biases to convince the audience. Additionally, fictional statements may often be vague and difficult to verify.

4. How can we avoid falling for false information?

One way to avoid falling for false information is to fact-check and verify any claims before accepting them as true. This can involve researching from multiple reliable sources and using critical thinking skills to analyze the evidence. It is also important to be aware of personal biases and to fact-check information even if it aligns with our beliefs.

5. Is it ever okay to believe in something without evidence?

Believing in something without evidence is a personal choice, but as a scientist, it is essential to base our beliefs on evidence and facts. Without evidence, it is challenging to determine the validity of a statement, and it can lead to false beliefs and misconceptions. It is always best to seek evidence and critically evaluate information before accepting it as true.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
766
Replies
14
Views
844
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
991
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
605
Back
Top