The flip side of this is an outsider who gets the core principles of a discipline correct might be able to diagnose that the experts really are wrong (because they are deviating from the core principles of their own discipline).
An example I've given before is wave-particle duality. In a famous series of experiments, light was projected through a number of slits cut into a material.
When there was one slit, the light behaved in a way believed to be consistent with particles but not waves.
When there were multiple slits, the light behaved in a way believed to be consistent with waves but not particles.
The modern orthodox conclusion is that light is both a wave and a particle.
But, this reverses the scientific method, in which an experiment is meant to rule out a plausible-looking hypothesis that had been assembled based on prior observation (and not "confirm" multiple contradictory hypotheses despite known counter-evidence). I believe a more reasonable interpretation is that light is neither a wave nor a particle. One experiment rules out one, and the other rules out the other.
The reason I am able to advance this argument is not that I know more about physics than the physicists, but because I understand the principles of the scientific method, which they neglect.
a source familiar with the matter /
npub17k…mhcd0
2025-04-01 12:42:03
in reply to nevent1q…sgu9
Author Public Key
npub17k64766yhzvhk2mws356dftl35lnkthjwq34gdz9cs8va3y9aejqwmhcd0Published at
2025-04-01 12:42:03Event JSON
{
"id": "3649bca079ccb8d7a0fbeb77f99cc1612561817c129e2d095d1638fea2a38bee",
"pubkey": "f5b55f6b44b8997b2b6e8469a6a57f8d3f3b2ef27023543445c40ecec485ee64",
"created_at": 1743511323,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"b4730e65c85eb06f6438c6b5588dd0d2ed0a9bd5123a9bec99f0bb0ea5f9e7ac",
"",
"root"
],
[
"p",
"ca19074d7eb67ebf18aecba30edb9d60407ed6c82ff240d0a6026541ba7d2014"
]
],
"content": "The flip side of this is an outsider who gets the core principles of a discipline correct might be able to diagnose that the experts really are wrong (because they are deviating from the core principles of their own discipline).\n\nAn example I've given before is wave-particle duality. In a famous series of experiments, light was projected through a number of slits cut into a material.\n\nWhen there was one slit, the light behaved in a way believed to be consistent with particles but not waves.\n\nWhen there were multiple slits, the light behaved in a way believed to be consistent with waves but not particles.\n\nThe modern orthodox conclusion is that light is both a wave and a particle.\n\nBut, this reverses the scientific method, in which an experiment is meant to rule out a plausible-looking hypothesis that had been assembled based on prior observation (and not \"confirm\" multiple contradictory hypotheses despite known counter-evidence). I believe a more reasonable interpretation is that light is neither a wave nor a particle. One experiment rules out one, and the other rules out the other.\n\nThe reason I am able to advance this argument is not that I know more about physics than the physicists, but because I understand the principles of the scientific method, which they neglect.",
"sig": "b1b79166b38a139d4c57fb37b433430a53014d735c5e8d02b0758c9efba9b99b4e57d0ef0138aa01839c88dcf2b17421d9578ac7fedac46b8d0ec160b9dadec8"
}