But then the rationality community is full of people who think they have disproved to Copenhagen Interpretation. Maybe the rationality community deals in controversialism, but their controversies aren’t so salient to people in the community.
I predict, and would be willing to bet if we can operationalize it, that: if we compare [the opinion you refer to expressed by some people in the rationalist community] to [the “this disproves relativity” opinions Villiam is refering to], the rationalist community opinion is more mainstream among physicists than the Mensa opinions.
The degree of confidence with which it is held is not usual among physicists, and a number have objected to it over the years.(Generally receiving short shrift)
I can see a difference of degree between lesswrong and mensa, but only a difference of degree. There is no need to explain why mensa are contrarian, as if you are completely different
Can you be more specific? There are many things you could mean by “difference of degree”. Some of them seem quite bad if true, and some seem perfectly benign.
Like sure, both are nonzero on some scale of contrarianism. But I predict that, for example, separating the world into “zero on that scale” and “nonzero on that scale” is mostly a silly categorization. (Even if the optimal amount on that scale is zero, which I doubt.) If all you mean by “difference of degree” is that they’re both nonzero on that scale, then I think it says very little.
Whereas if you mean, for example, something like… “if you asked mainstream physics PhDs for their thoughts, they’d say “this is a dumb opinion to hold” only slightly more often for the mensa opinions than for the LW opinion”… if you mean something like that, then calling it “only a difference of degree” seems like a significant claim that would reflect badly on LW if it were true. But I don’t think it’s true.
For comparison, this lecture was given at European Mensa meetup in Prague six years ago.
Short version, it “disproves” the theory of relativity by proposing the existence of Global Aether. The theory “avoids quantitative details to keep the difficulty level as low as possible”. It also debunks quantum physics, because quantum physics literally accepts magic, defined as “forces from virtual fields with mathematical properties and without material or tangible cause”. Et cetera.
The really bad part was when I later tried to explain to Mensa members why the lecture was obviously nonsensical, because we already have a lot of experimental evidence in favor of relativistic effects (basically sharing this link and providing a short summary, such as “the GPS in your smartphone must calculate using relativistic equations, otherwise it would give wrong results”), so any alternative theory would need to explain these effects too, not just ignore them and insist on flat space-time.
The consensus of Mensa members was: “He is an internationally respected author who published a lot of books” (translation: He has a website with a list of dozen self-published books), plus the usual arguments that “people deserve to hear alternative opinions” and “according to Popper, scientific theories cannot be proved anyway”. With the recommendation that if I misunderstood something, I should ask the author, instead of wasting everyone’s time.
...so, one of the reasons I don’t go to Mensa meetups, despite technically being a (former) member.
I believe there is a huge difference between “Copenhagen vs MWI” and “relativity vs aether” controversies.
But then the rationality community is full of people who think they have disproved to Copenhagen Interpretation. Maybe the rationality community deals in controversialism, but their controversies aren’t so salient to people in the community.
I predict, and would be willing to bet if we can operationalize it, that: if we compare [the opinion you refer to expressed by some people in the rationalist community] to [the “this disproves relativity” opinions Villiam is refering to], the rationalist community opinion is more mainstream among physicists than the Mensa opinions.
The degree of confidence with which it is held is not usual among physicists, and a number have objected to it over the years.(Generally receiving short shrift)
I can see a difference of degree between lesswrong and mensa, but only a difference of degree. There is no need to explain why mensa are contrarian, as if you are completely different
Can you be more specific? There are many things you could mean by “difference of degree”. Some of them seem quite bad if true, and some seem perfectly benign.
Like sure, both are nonzero on some scale of contrarianism. But I predict that, for example, separating the world into “zero on that scale” and “nonzero on that scale” is mostly a silly categorization. (Even if the optimal amount on that scale is zero, which I doubt.) If all you mean by “difference of degree” is that they’re both nonzero on that scale, then I think it says very little.
Whereas if you mean, for example, something like… “if you asked mainstream physics PhDs for their thoughts, they’d say “this is a dumb opinion to hold” only slightly more often for the mensa opinions than for the LW opinion”… if you mean something like that, then calling it “only a difference of degree” seems like a significant claim that would reflect badly on LW if it were true. But I don’t think it’s true.
What I mean by “difference of degree” is “NOT difference of kind”.
For comparison, this lecture was given at European Mensa meetup in Prague six years ago.
Short version, it “disproves” the theory of relativity by proposing the existence of Global Aether. The theory “avoids quantitative details to keep the difficulty level as low as possible”. It also debunks quantum physics, because quantum physics literally accepts magic, defined as “forces from virtual fields with mathematical properties and without material or tangible cause”. Et cetera.
The really bad part was when I later tried to explain to Mensa members why the lecture was obviously nonsensical, because we already have a lot of experimental evidence in favor of relativistic effects (basically sharing this link and providing a short summary, such as “the GPS in your smartphone must calculate using relativistic equations, otherwise it would give wrong results”), so any alternative theory would need to explain these effects too, not just ignore them and insist on flat space-time.
The consensus of Mensa members was: “He is an internationally respected author who published a lot of books” (translation: He has a website with a list of dozen self-published books), plus the usual arguments that “people deserve to hear alternative opinions” and “according to Popper, scientific theories cannot be proved anyway”. With the recommendation that if I misunderstood something, I should ask the author, instead of wasting everyone’s time.
...so, one of the reasons I don’t go to Mensa meetups, despite technically being a (former) member.
I believe there is a huge difference between “Copenhagen vs MWI” and “relativity vs aether” controversies.
Are you a physicist?
No.