,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Ok. Let's do a little Gedankenexperiment, here.
1) Meet Alice. Alice claims that there's an actual running "debate" between the pioneering proponents of a new kind of perpetual motion machine (based on crystals) & the boring proponents of the "official" thermodynamic theory.
1) Meet Alice. Alice claims that there's an actual running "debate" between the pioneering proponents of a new kind of perpetual motion machine (based on crystals) & the boring proponents of the "official" thermodynamic theory.
2) Meet Bob. Bob claims there's not such a "debate". Sure: no scientific theory is ever "proven" & we can always have fun w/ philosophical paradoxes (Earth MAY be flat in some convoluted AdS/CFT toy-model). But he promotes a skeptical default: don't buy perpetual motion machines.
3) Now, meet Peter. Peter wants Alice & Bob to "debate". Since Bob would not accept, he first interviews Bob alone, then he starts interviewing Alice, challenging Bob to answer back. Peter claims that doing so he's being "neutral", just "listening to all sides" & "learning".
4) Now, I know the way I set up Gedankenexperiment shows a strong bias towards Bob. Just try to ignore it, & assume Alice's & Bob's claims are equiprobable for now. Still, what Peter is doing is, objectively & clearly, promoting Alice's position. Not being neutral.
