Why aren't that many people interested in physics but on junk knowledge

Because it takes effort and people are lazy.

 

Mathematicians would be quick to point out to you that even physicists are focusing on 'junk knowledge' and that the only truths that you can work with are those of abstraction, such as in number theory, graph theory, etc. Speaking of which, I have recently been extending http://heybryan.org/bookmarks/kanzure_bookmarks_July30th02007.html#19-top [Broken].

- Bryan

 

Actually, my interest in physics stems from my interest in junk knowledge. This site really changed my life.
http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm

 

Er.. tell those mathematicians that when they start having 'experimentalists' among them, then we'll talk about "truths".

Zz.

 

Speak for yourself.

 

Yes! Great site!
:rofl:

Okay, she's not quite Hedy Lamar, but...

 

Here's another viewpoint on this matter.

 

In a physical sense he's absolutely right. It reiterates Zz's point about experiment.

How can you have a what without form, or truth without a basis in that, all you have really is a form of philosophy that works in our minds and even on paper in symbolism but not in practical terms.

Numbers are like this, they're are not in essence inherently real just abstractions. When we apply them they become based in the real world ie 1 apple is real but 1 is not, the number 1 is not a reality any more than the number i is. They are equally real or better to say equally unreal or abstract.

Mathematics is not an absolute prediction of reality even when applied, it is merely a best guess, but it suffices, it is close enough for comfort, and dare I say it close enough to be real as far as we know or can find tangible evidence for.

An abstract proof is a logical proof but it is not a truth.

Probably why Bertrand Russel set out to formalise logic in philosophy and maths, it helps to at least have the right language before you proceed.

 

Actually, I think he meant that a mathematician doesn't assert that something is true, just that it follows from the axioms. And the axioms are not proven. That is the 'don't know if it's true' part. And the axioms refer to entities that are not defined. That is the 'we don't know what we are talking about' part.

 

The entities are not defined just means without tangible form, and not proven just means without tangible proof or evidence which follows naturally from the first proviso. I think we just said pretty much the same thing.

This is way to serious for GD

I'm not a mathematician as such so I don't know how they define entities, although I know entity has a different philosophical or mathematical interpretation from a scientific one. So perhaps define what you mean by entity?

Thinking about it you may be right, but that doesn't make what I said any less apt, if you change the definition in fact to a scientific one it becomes even more clear. Entity reinforces this point mathematically and even more clearly reinforces it scientifically.

 

Because the right answer would be demeaning to people who do not like to think beyond what Britney Spear's latest outfit looks like and is not politically correct

Let's face it some people just aren't able or willing to look beyond what they see at a superficial level, nothing wrong with that, it's just the way things are. Not everyone likes obscure thought.

Science is not wholly accessible to people who dislike looking into the deeper mysteries, perhaps that's where it fails, perhaps it should be?

 

Interest begets interest. It's a cycle.

To become interested in physics, you have to gain a foothold somewhere first. Maybe it happens while launching model rockets as a kid. Maybe it happens while watching a nature show on TV. Maybe it happens while turning a prism over in your hand while standing out in the sunlight. Once this initial spark of interest takes hold, it rapidly snowballs. You start reading popular science books, then Feynman lectures, etc. Every new bit you learn just strenghtens your desire to learn another.

For most people, this initial spark just doesn't happen. They aren't lucky enough, I suppose, to have had some kind of exposure that piqued their interest long ago, when their minds were still receptive to it.

My interests are broad. I can safely say that I can open any textbook on any topic whatsoever and find something in it that fascinates me. Most people, on the other hand, have very few, or very narrow interests. It's very easy to be interested in things that all your friends are interested in, which is why "sensations" like American Idol end up infecting probably 95% of the population.

Interest in science, in theory, could carry the same social weight, and spead the same way as American Idol. The problem is that scientific insight takes delayed gratification. You know when you begin a tough problem that you might spend half the night reading and trying things, only to be blocked at every turn. Eventually, though, you know you'll solve the problem, and that feeling of accomplishment is worth all the effort.

Many people, though, can't deal with delayed gratification, at all. That's why we have fast food, TiVo, and all the rest of our modern "conveniences."

- Warren

 

Benzoate, that is fashion. Science should be made more fashionable.

 

Anyone who was around me for about 20 years was given every chance to be fascinated by the mysteries of the universe and the profound insights of science. And it took me that long to figure out that it wasn't a matter of saying something just right, or trying to explain things without using overly technical language, or a matter of perspective, but instead I finally realized they just don't care.

Then there is the other situation: As my dad learned more about subjects like relativity, he began to doubt the credibility of scientists.

You have to understand the process in order to appreciate the conclusions, and the only way to understand the process is to study the subject long enough that the process need not be justified.

Finally, many people just don't have the horsepower upstairs. Or, if they do, their brains just don't work in such as way that deep subjects matter. Most people just want normal, predicatable, safe lives that are void of unnecessary complications.

 

Of course, there's the insidious way that no one ever regards someone close to them -- family member, friend, etc. -- as an expert in anything. Sometimes the initial spark of interest has to come from someone outside.

Even scientists go through this process. When you're a kid, the textbooks are thick, and written in authoritative tone. When you're a grad student, the textbooks are flimsy paperbacks with plenty of errors and omissions. Sometimes they're just stacks of paper run off on the department's photocopier. Every budding scientist has to, at some point, grapple with the very significant holes in our current understanding of the universe.

An excellent point.

Or perhaps they do have the horsepower. Just, you know, only one horsepower. :uhh:

- Warren

 

That one's purely social. Having big muscles and scoring a touchdown get you chicks. Learning about physics... doesn't. At least not until you're in your late twenties.

- Warren