See the entire conversation

Weirdly, people who say "but science can't explain everything!" never have their OWN consistent model for the neutron electric dipole moment
281 replies and sub-replies as of Jul 10 2017

science can't explain everything, yet. It's always looking for answers and usually ends up finding them at some point.
Don't know what that means, but I trust this tweet to be funny and/or smart.
It's related to my thesis work on axions and the Strong CP problem which is REALLY COOL I PROMISE
Katie did you get your PhD at P'ton with Steinhardt?
I'll be by Fine library today, read your thesis(online) and be sure to let you know about the 12 mistakes I find tonite. 😉
I believe you might be wrong. "A wizard did it" is perfectly consistent with that phenomenon
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Clarke
I always think about that @daraobriain quote: "Science knows it doesn't know everything - otherwise, it'd stop."
It all starts with the fundamental insight that neutrons are Libras but electrons are Geminis
It doesn't have to explain everything, it just has to explain more than anything else.
"Science doesn't have all the answers!" Well it doesn't have all the funding either but we can work on this
Science can explain why science doesn't have all the answers, but it can't explain when it will.
They normally say this when science *does* have the answer. They just don't like the answer
If it had all the answers would you be out of a job?
with enough funding can science explain why I'm so angry and bitter?!?!
You probably need more funding.
Fact is that science doesn't have all the answers YET but we're getting there
Precisely. Science HAS all the answers. Just that we’re not science-ing enough.
Okay, I think you win the Internet today. :)
I find the number of answers any person has is inversely proportional to how loud and often they say that science does not have all answers.
At least science keeps looking for the answers.
Of course science doesn't have all the answers; if it did, it wouldn't be necessary anymore!
I always want to amend this statement with one word... "yet"
If science had all the answers there would be no point in doing science anymore.
Stop me if you've already heard @daraobriain's amazing reply to "Well, Science doesn't know everything..."
I have and it is v good
I haven't heard. Please share it.
Oh my god this is amazing, and he's hilarious 😆
"Science KNOWS it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop." Thank you for sharing! That was enlightening!
"... Because if it did, it would stop!"
I have this one: "Of course NOT, how that could possible be, if people like you refuse to provide a detailed list of all the questions"
I like to use this....
Definitely a pet peeve of mine when people make these comments yet have no idea how or why we don't have the answers yet.
If science has the answer for everything, we just need more questions.
Fortunately, answers often come in spite of absence of any funding. It's amazing that critical thinking works! More should try it.
I like to add a "yet" onto that phrase. "Science doesn't have all the answers... yet!" Though dark matter makes that tricky.
What with the whole non-interactable thing. Presuming we don't find a way around that someday!
But there are two sense of "can't" here. One "can't" means "it is impossible to" the other means "you're not capable of".
Science doesn't have all the answers, but science answers more questions correctly than pseudoscience ever will.
Furthermore, that's the WHOLE point of science...the quest for answers.
Govt doesn't seem to have any answers.
Funding something that gets no results is insanity.
If we had all the answers today, what would we do tomorrow? Grant applications would get a lot harder to write.
I wish science had the answers for why people go from 0 to Mad Hatter over observational tweets.
See, the thing about science is that generally in finding one answer, what it does is open up several more questions. It's like a fractal.
While the GOP war on research is hideous, giving tons more money to big science will not necessarily help us use new knowledge well... the Science March didn't say much about the "to those who have, more shall be given" attitude in science funding, cf @MBarany on this
(Possibly sensitive)
A wizard panda did it. Checkmate @AstroKatie.
wonder if we need to reframe: here is the results, and it has impact x. Also here are questions y, z that we are trying to ans
And wouldn't know a two-loop diagram if it bit them in the ass.
So I'm not the only physicist who's been bitten by a two-loop diagram when I least expected it?
Why would anyone want science to explain everything? Very happy to fall in love without a scientific commentary smugly telling me why.
Stop talking to the smug scientists Talk to the fun ones
I don't need commentary necessarily but it would be tragic if no one were studying how love happens scientifically
I like the Feynman aproach for this sort of things: science doesn't take away the beauty of something just by explaining it.
A rainbow, no; love or the beauty of Shakespeare, yes. Sometimes reductionism is a backward step.
(Sry if bad english not native language) Why do you have this opinion? It has something to do about the beauty of a mistery?
I think there is nothing to be afraid of here. There's no loss – just one kind of wonder replacing another one.
Because to me is like, "something is making people love this book, I wanna know how that happens because it must be awesome"
So you need to read @BluejoWalton's book "What makes this book so awesome" about awesome science fiction books...
However to an extent the result tends to be reductionism
Maybe love is like an electron; observation moves it.
I guess I like more of the unraveling of a mistery than the mistery itself
You think that understanding love or languages makes them less beautiful or awesome? Just curious if you know why you have that perception?
I think the mechanics of love and art appreciation have scientific explanations, but philosophy is needed to discern value, meaning, etc?
Maybe, I think so. Example, you learn the mechanics of writing in such a way that you are able to teach a machine how to write masterpieces
The writing of that machine is still art? Is enjoyable?
To quote Shakespeare: sayeth thee.
The great thing about science is we can all study different reduced parts of a thing and discover beautiful new things about it!
I never really cared for Shakespeare until I read an article about how its effectiveness can be tied to specific cognitive theories
Everyone has their favourite part of the elephant and that's mine!
Absolutely agreed! I don't feel less wonder in the universe for knowing how it works--if anything, I feel MORE
I'm with you there, science only adds beauty.
Mike asked about "why" one falls in love; you replied with "how". Shows the difference (and boundary limit) of science.
You think scientists are smug??
I am not sure about that
Not everyone can reverse the polarity of the neutron flow
I'm going to have to google that one
Random aside: the outreach storeroom is next door to the nEDM lab @PhysicsAtSussex !
I've noticed mathematical proofs are weirdly exempt from that; they are more willing to take your word even if they don't understand it.
They usually fail however to make that leap when the math describes a physical phenomenon, for some reason.
(Nobody ever tell them about Gödel's incompleteness theorem)
Math cranks are still stuck on 0.999999...=1
Which is why I chose engineering. It's close enough for all practical purposes. 😏
No they're not. There are no practicing mathematicians who dispute that.
I'm pretty sure Suresh was making a joke :) (infinite decimals => infinitely long proof)
I was merely saying that the equivalent of climate change (and round earth) deniers are math cranks who argue that 0.9999 !- 1 :)
The "tide goes in, tide goes out" theory "explains" everything for some ppl. Hope your model checks out - though I won't understand it!
What irks me is the gusto it takes to type that stuff out on a slab of glass and metal and send it to someone across the earth in a second
That's why research is so cool. Hopefully it never reaches the point that science has explained everything otherwise we'd be out of a job!
There are always questions between the questions
I might agree that science can't explain everything, but science can explain everything that is possible to explain far better than myths.
Why would they need to? Surely that is exactly the kind of thing that they would say scientists CAN explain so would leave it to them?
i am glad i studied chemistry just for this tweet
A lot of science these days doesn't even seem to try to "explain" things. A model is not an explanation if nobody understands it.
Imagine we put ai to the task of combining qm with gr and it spat out a model which worked experimentally, but we could never explain why
Measurements are not explanations. For example a brain scan of someone who says they are in love will never capture what they might mean.
Don't joke. Flat earthers will cite this Tweet as support that we admit science is false. Heck, the current US administration may cite it.
Probably my favorite quote of the year.
that there are things which fall outside domain of science doesn't entail there's a discipline that can explain everything...
that there are some truths science couldn't discover doesn't entail that science isn't the best method for explaining behaviour of neutrons
I just had a moment, thank you.
That's what I said!!! Okay, not really. I'm not that smart.
Science cannot explain everything. . .YET
I've been working on the N-E tadpole moment all this time? DAMMIT
*nods head pretending to understand what she said*
People don't tend to have consistent models for heating and cooling!
I simply love your humor. Thanks for your posts!
And I'm one of them. Which is why I rely on science. Anyway, the best answer to that comment is 'yet'.
👏😅. And of because it's made up of quarks which have partial charges 😎
Duh god invented is and we’re not supposed to question it
Which explains everything
Science can't address many problems in philosophy of science. In fighting bad reasoning, please don't fall prey to scientism trap.
No one is claiming it can. When being pedantic on Twitter, please don't fall prey to distorting the comment you're addressing
Note: I warned you about a trap, implying you had not yet set off the trip. We all should be wary of (unintentional) distortions on Twitter.
P.S. I don't consider this an issue of pedantry: people adopting scientism miss out on value in philosophy. Hope no hard feelings.
Have a nice day
If science can't explain it, what can?
WIKIPEDIA: "A popular rephasing invariant whose vanishing signals absence of CP violation and occurs in most CP violating amplitudes is...."
Is the neutron round? :)
You just lost all of those people at "consistent". Keep your syllable count low, man. Give them a chance!!
Gosh if only I had consulted you, internet stranger, before phrasing my extremely popular tweet. 🙄
Whoa, didn't think irony would be lost on someone so well-versed, but I guess I was blinded by all that popularity XD
I LOVE your feed, Katie, and enjoy the window into science, but am often surprised by the vitriolic way you respond to innocuous comments.
That's vitriol?
Also the guy blocked me so probably he doesn't want to be included in discussion with me, just fyi
That wasn't vitriol, just like the troll wasn't innocuous. 😬
"science can't explain everything" ain't exactly innocuous, either.
Tiffany, please imagine that every day people who don't know your life knock on your window and expect you to take their advice on your life
How many times do you think this could happen in a day before you started to think maybe "well-meaning advice" to strangers isn't great?
[whispers] also I'm like actually pretty nice about it?
Oh, yeah, and that's the other wrinkle - no response to drive-by advice other than taking it is guaranteed to be seen as properly respectful
(And that includes giving no response.)
Where is the vitriol? The response was basically advising "Be a lot meaner!"
I think the tweet in question was an attempt at humor, not actual advice.
Yes, that's how I read it too.
disappointed in them 😦
I'm totally understand the problem (although my 12 followers are pretty nice/indifferent). Maybe I read the comments differently than you do
Yeah w 12 followers things are likely a bit different 😐 Still, "vitriol" is an utterly bizarre characterization
Most feedback I get is "I can't believe you're so patient/polite!" And I didn't exactly lose my temper here.
Anyway I have no intention to make it a practice to fake a smile in response to poorly aimed jokes. All the best
That was vitriol? Really? Welcome to Twitter, where we put up with birds telling us what to do and we're surprisingly polite about it
Correction: foxcoons, which actually sounds pretty fun
I'm searching for the electron EDM for my PHD, wish me luck :)
Good luck! 😊
Brilliant. (I don't have a consistent model for the neutron electric dipole moment either, but am not anti-science.)
These "people" haven't been fortunate enough to benefit from your brain, env, edu etc of which we are (mostly) slaves to.
In such cases you should just say that you prayed to Zeus for yrs without getting answers before turning to science. It's worth the look. 😀
I just read this to my wife. Her reply, "If you can't explain it with science, you aren't using the right science." - Darlene Gillet
Which vacuum eqns?
sadly godel did prove that we can't explain everything :( but neither can anyone else!
I wonder what overlap there is between people who say this and people who think a 2000 year old book 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 have all the answers.
Or their own awesome pictures of the other side of frikkin' Saturn.
It's just a phrase, but science can't explain everything: it's a methodology, allowing others to build a consensus - leading to knowledge 😎
I don't know what that means but I'm pretty sure the explanation is God dunnit. 😜
I always get randomly happy by mentions of the EDM as a great friend in grad school did his thesis on them! (Though the electron variety)
It doesn't have to. It just has to offer a confirmable explanation of those things it does.
Everything except for why. Science for the win on everything else.
Who wants to determine a total narrative based on a fragment of information? I'm cool with not knowing, but open to learning. 🤙🏼 🖖🏼
Also scientists at least TRY to get answers, unlike religion and others who just give up at the sight of tricky ass probs. 👊🏻
There are things only science can explain, but I'm convinced its self-consistency constrains it to incompleteness.
science finds itself on the frontier of what is proven. Which, by nature, means it'll always be learning more.
Also, being at an edge means almost no one will know what you're talking about.
True. Separately, there are propositions unprovable to scientific standards, necessarily and permanently outside science's magisterium.
Probably never heard of the neutron electric dipole moment. I haven't.
That's the problem. When most people claim science doesn't know everything they have no clue how much it does know
On facebook I just encountered a bunch of people whose prove roundup is poisoning us is an article on a site that sells "health supplements"
I'm working on it, okay? Geez!! ;-)
"But science can't explain everything!" Yet!
Thankfully, or we'd both be out of a job.
scientists are too cowardly to expose the lepton goblins
I will put this tweet to my forehead
science has all the answers but the scientist dont, theyre workin on it lol
Science can't answer philosophical questions or explain anything outside the physical world. Why is this offensive?
Really? Nm...
Lots of black and demons holding hands.
I feel like I'm the only one replying that knows what a Dipole moment is 🤔
I feel conflicted when the word science becomes an empty modifier. Kind of like energy. Is science more a description than an explanation?
or for why they have armpit sweat
Eh? But it can't. Science can't prove that science proves after all. That's a job for logic, another unprovable construct.
Out of idle curiosity, have you heard of / if so what's your opinion of the "hydrino"
Neutrons have an electric dipole moment?
Them: ✨💥💥💥💥💥💥
"of course it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" Dara O'Brien. 🤣
Not one person with their own consistent model for the neurtron electric dipole has turned away from science as a valid knowledge source.
Why would you want science to explain everything? Where would be the pleasure & excitement of exploration & questioning why & what if?
Science can explain everything, it's a lack of resource, experience, equipment and data in target area which prevents science from doing it.
it's always amusing to see someone with so much faith in something that is unverifiable @AstroKatie
Please, explain to me how a science body with infinite funding could fail - over a long enough period of time - to explain everything?
you can never know if there are things you can never know. Science isn't omniscient. It's a method to creep forward @AstroKatie
There'll always be things we dont know, forever, but pursuit of knowledge isn't a fruitless task. Science is why we move forward, not back.
now reconcile your last two tweets @AstroKatie
and funding isn't a cure all. @AstroKatie
there is no gaurintee that scientific method won't take us to a local maxima from which we can progress no further @AstroKatie
That has to be the most ignorant statement I have heard in a long, long time. True science knows that it's conclusion is based on evidence.
evidence proved the existence of phlogiston @AstroKatie
You sure? Are you not factoring in everything I have said so far? Science is progressive by nature... Your position on this in untenable.
i factored in you believe science will one day explain everything and can never explain everything
Your argument is that because science proved something was real but failed in the past, science is nonsese. You're - literally - insane.
find a tweet where I said that science is nonsense. You're making things up.
I do think it's entirely possible that science as practiced today may not explain everything. There's a difference.
That wasn't my argument at all. I said infinite funding and infinite time. You're arguing a chronologically static and different position.
"evidence proved the existence of phlogiston" are you saying that this conclusion is wrong, therefore science cannot be trusted?
go back to school. Take a philosophy of science course or at least read something like…
Your position is untenable given the argument I presented. It is, quite literally, impossible for you to be correct.
hahaha the derp is deep in this one
You keep trying to hit me in the balls with the insults, but with every shot - you lose ground. Try harder.
your hilarious. Naive. But hilarious. Like a babe that's learned to walk & thinks if I keep this up I'll be running 100km/hr soon
Keep doing the insults, if you stayed on topic and presented an argument you'd win. But you don't. So you lose in a very short space of time
oh there's no winning against a zealot who has as much faith as you. I know that.
So, please tell me, over an infinite stretch of time - what is one thing *just one* that is impossible. If you do this I will love you.
I would spurn that love. Zealots don't interest me.
You mean you know you lost and need to retreat to save face ? Yeah I know that when we started.
sure sure. Whatever makes you happy. Your "science" is very Newtonian with no real understanding of current actual science
Dude. You just said that knowing the state of all matter in the universe at any given point doesn't mean you can predict the future. 😂
yes. That is exactly what I said. Science has pretty much accepted that you know.
If you know the state of all matter at a given point you also know all variant outcomes from that point. So you literally know the futute.
hahahaha you poor ignorant kid. Go and learn a little quantum physics. Just a little. The universe doesn't work that way.
No. If you are omnipotent to the level where you know everything at any given point, you will know all variant outcomes from that point.
what can I say? You are wrong. Absolutely wrong. That is well established now. Start with Heisenberg uncertainty principle
which btw is another thing science accepts cannot be known
Prove me wrong. Demonstrate that X who knows all about Y does not know all variants of Y over a timeline of Z where Z is infinite. Do it.
like an evangelist wanting a 140 char proof of evolution without being willing to study genetics
Prove it. You don't need 140 chrs. You could write a webpage with potentially infinite text and you would, inarguably, be wrong.
Heisenberg already proved it. Show me he's wrong.
start here… although I do recommend the lighter book I referenced earlier
I'm off to bed. Good luck in leaving the cave and finding the truth
Retreat, wake up, claim victory - continue. You lost, I didn't insult you - you failed. Night night buttercup, sleep well.
yeah yeah you're right. Heisenberg was wrong. Because you say so. Sure sure.
you don't like science. You like yourself
You're going to hit that pillow and stay awake thinking about this. I know you are... And I'm smiling.
it really has been funny prodding such a faith filled naïve believer in a Newtonian world. Science left that in the 30's
Ohhh. Shhhh! Go gave a nice long nap, when you come back you can carry on as if this never happened. That's the great thing about twitter.
we thought it did. Now we know it doesn't.
your argument is weak. Pathetic. Assume an infinite amount of time and this method will achieve everything? That is faith alone
No it's fucking maths. If you have an infinite length of time, tell me *one* thing that is impossible. Just one. Do it and I will conceed.
oh predicting the future from knowing the current state of all matter
I am asking a question. Tell me one thing over an infinite timeline that is impossible. Just one. That's all you have to do.
didn't you see it?
oh predicting the future from knowing the current state of all matter
Oh my word... Is this your win?
you're like an evangelical asking for a proof against god which you know you'll find some wriggle room to slip out and claim a win
Do you believe in God? Just asking.
Me neither. Which makes your argument so much more confusing.
I'm confusing because you are so buried in faith.
that thing about state of all matter and not predicting the future a classic description of the death of the Newtonian world.
I do believe in science. I also believe science is a man made methodology not some esoteric divine rite
climb a mountain using the method of only ever stepping to a higher point. Let me know what you find when you mount a foothill
If I climb a mountain I use previous climbers experience combined with my own to find the best part to the peak. Standard method, it works.
hahaha you're so dense
Gratz on the comeback, it's what people do when they know they've lost 😉
sure sure. Whatever makes you feel safe and snug that your faith is all encompassing
My faith? It's not faith - it's maths - over an infinite stretch of time everything becomes possible. It's not hard to understand.
everything becomes possible? Everything? Maybe if you factor in multiple dimensions
your faith is strong. Not terribly rational but strong. @AstroKatie
I was in the impression that it was proven that everything can not be proven. 8)
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Arthur C. Clarke
They need to switch to "Science can't explain everything*" *Yet, but I am confident that we will get there....