Comment by mrbungie
4 days ago
I don't think GP was rigorous, but your comment is kind of pedantic, isn't it?
Most people commenting here know that all models are false but some make good predictions, and achieving that status is enough for most laypeople to classify it as a (potential) answer.
Going further, yes, this is a new theory among others, but afaik is the first one with strong evidence.
I don't mean it as an attack on GP, but no, I don't agree that this is pedantic. This happens constantly when science is popularized -- people read one article and leap to the conclusion that a problem has been revolutionized/solved/answered simply because they're reading about it -- and no, the HN audience is no better. Technophiles love a good scientific revolution story.
It's very much a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. Almost nothing in science has an answer, and if you let your brain lock in that way, you forego the opportunity to ask interesting questions. It also leads directly to lots of downstream pathologies common in amongst laypeople (e.g. "The Science is Settled", which it almost never is).
> Going further, yes, this is a new theory among others, but afaik is the first one with strong evidence.
I am not an expert in this field, but others have evidence too. Particularly when asking "why" questions like this, the bar for proof is incredibly high.
It might not be intended as an attack, but it does feels like one (especially that unnecesary jab at technophiles). Also I find it incredibly ironic that you are making so many assumptions about what GP meant, what HN audience understands from the article and what they will make of it just to make a point about philosophy of science and popsci.
It wasn't a "jab". There's no other way to say it -- technophiles fall into this trap constantly.