/sci/ - Science & Math

>Physics is fragile because it is like a game of Jenga. Pull out or change one piece and the whole thing is either reordered or simply collapses.
>Modern physics now looks at the nature of our life on Earth as an exception to the general rule of frictionless and continuous movement in the vacuum of space.
>A valid question to ask is how much more that we take to be normal is a special case of reality? As we encounter more and more abberrant data, such as quantum mechanics, we might soon find ourself unifying seemingly disparate forces in the same was that Newton in a novel and seemingly absurd way the fact that objects fall to the ground with the apparent fact that the Earth orbits the Sun into one new concept: Gravity. Even worse with the unfalsifiable mess that is String Theory.
>Even if we have minutely mismeasured, the Jenga piece of light will radically alter everthing: our ideas of how old the universe is, our relationships with other planets, the solvency of general relativity, etc. We have many other things tied into our interpretation of light that will have to change if we realize our models of it are flawed.
>I remember talking to someone over the internet who accused me of having a low view of institutionalized science and being a dreaded epistemological anarchist because one of my degrees is in the "soft science" of linguistics: It is substantially more advanced and its findings are substantially more solid than physics. Since formalizing ideas in math doesn't just make something a better or a more rigorous science.
>The phenomenology of linguistics is as secure as ever across all theoretical frameworks. That is, we know how language works. Even if we totally rewrite our narratives and theories about linguistic basics, there is no debate about the structure of language and how basic data relates to other data. This is absolutely the opposite of math and physics.

https://lukesmith.xyz/articles/the-fragility-of-physics/
thoughts?

>Physics is fragile because it is like a game of Jenga. Pull out or change one piece and the whole thing is either reordered or simply collapses.
>Modern physics now looks at the nature of our life on Earth as an exception to the general rule of frictionless and continuous movement in the vacuum of space.
>A valid question to ask is how much more that we take to be normal is a special case of reality? As we encounter more and more abberrant data, such as quantum mechanics, we might soon find ourself unifying seemingly disparate forces in the same was that Newton in a novel and seemingly absurd way the fact that objects fall to the ground with the apparent fact that the Earth orbits the Sun into one new concept: Gravity. Even worse with the unfalsifiable mess that is String Theory.
>Even if we have minutely mismeasured, the Jenga piece of light will radically alter everthing: our ideas of how old the universe is, our relationships with other planets, the solvency of general relativity, etc. We have many other things tied into our interpretation of light that will have to change if we realize our models of it are flawed.
>I remember talking to someone over the internet who accused me of having a low view of institutionalized science and being a dreaded epistemological anarchist because one of my degrees is in the "soft science" of linguistics: It is substantially more advanced and its findings are substantially more solid than physics. Since formalizing ideas in math doesn't just make something a better or a more rigorous science.
>The phenomenology of linguistics is as secure as ever across all theoretical frameworks. That is, we know how language works. Even if we totally rewrite our narratives and theories about linguistic basics, there is no debate about the structure of language and how basic data relates to other data. This is absolutely the opposite of math and physics.

https://lukesmith.xyz/articles/the-fragility-of-physics/
thoughts?