Vaccinations in Book Form? (awful.systems)

submitted 7 months ago by blakestacey@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems

NSFW 57 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A while back, I set myself the project of figuring out how much of the MIT undergrad physics curriculum could be taught from free online books. The answer, so far, is more than I had anticipated but much less than what we deserve. But working on that, along with a few other conversations, has got me to wondering. We've seen TESCREAL types be just plain wrong about science many times over the years. Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality botches Punnett squares and pretty much everything more advanced than that. LessWrong demonstrably has no filter against old-school math crankery. The (ahem) leading light of "effective accelerationism" just plays Mad Libs with physics words. Yudkowsky's declarations about organic chemistry boggle the educated mind. They even manage to be weird about theoretical computer science — what we might call the "lambda calculus is super-Turing!" school of TESCREAL.

Sometimes, the difference between a TESCREAL understanding of science and a legitimate one comes from having studied the subject in a formal way. But not every aspiring autodidact with an interest in molecular biology or the theoretical limits of computation is a lost cause!

So, then: What books come down upon the superficial TESCREAL version of cool things like a ton of scientific bricks? What are the texts that one withdraws from an inside coat pocket and slides across the table, saying "This here is the good shit"?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] blakestacey@awful.systems 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I thought about assembling a kind of anti-Sequence reading list about quantum mechanics, a view from outside the cult shit that the Sequences try to drown you in, with their bad history, caricatured philosophy and mathematics that ranges from turgid to incorrect. The trouble is that a better understanding is not written all in one place, and even the good papers don't necessarily convey the everything Yud taught you is wrong emotional hook. The literature does not lead to cracking many smiles, though I did appreciate Adrian Kent's eel remark in this book review.

Some papers that have a bit more zing than average:

L. Catani et al., "Why interference phenomena do not capture the essence of quantum theory," Quantum 7 (2023), 1119.
K. Camilleri and M. Schlosshauer, "Niels Bohr as philosopher of experiment: Does decoherence theory challenge Bohr's doctrine of classical concepts?," Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 49 (2015), 73–83.
D. Howard, "Who invented the “Copenhagen Interpretation”? A study in mythology." Philosophy of Science 71 (2004), 669–682.
C. Chevalley, "Why do We Find Bohr Obscure?." In Epistemological and Experimental Perspectives on Quantum Physics (Springer, 1999), 59–73.

And, if you really want to dive into the waters and open your eyes below the surface:

N. Bohr, "The Causality Problem in Atomic Physics." In New Theories in Physics (International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation, 1939), 11–30.

this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024

24 points (100.0% liked)

SneerClub

983 readers

51 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

self@awful.systems

blakestacey@awful.systems

dgerard@awful.systems