I'd be happy to talk with you about this either publicly or privately if you'd like. I know you're interested in educating the public about science, so it concerns me to see prominent figures like you unknowingly promote fashionable pseudoscience like the "sex spectrum."
Ah, yes, physicists doing biology. They nearly always do it wrong. I remember when Neil DeGrasse Tyson said something ignorant about evolution. When corrected by evolutionary biologists, he accused them of not understanding evolution.
Physics does something to brains that causes the possessors of physics brains to believe their knowledge of physics makes then an expert on everything. Tell you what, Sean Carroll, if you don’t continue to go on about biology, I’ll agree not to have a Twitter rant about quantum physics. (Don’t tell him I’m not on Twitter, so I couldn’t do that anyway.)
1. The existence of even one intersex, or XXY, person means that “women” do not exist as a category. Except when used in phrases like “trans women are women.”
2. False dichotomies are bad. But also, everyone who does not agree with TRA positions is a genocidal transphobe. There are no intermediate positions.
Sometime in the early 20th century, physics became the “queen of the sciences.” “Einstein” became cultural shorthand for “genius,” and was proclaimed the world’s smartest person. That mantle was later transferred to Stephen Hawking; unclear to me if there’s been a successor anointed yet.
I’m sure there’s some interesting cultural/historical explanation for that, probably having to do with relativity and the atom bomb and the space program (although chemistry and biology had a little something to do with that also). The fact that in recent decades the biggest “innovation” in physics from a layperson’s perspective, string theory, seems to be a bit of a dead end, maybe is eroding that a little bit.
Screechy, one of the arguments people always made for physics being the queen of the sciences is that it was so precise. Biology deals in probabilities, variability, and ‘maybe’ or ‘probably’. Physics did math, so answers were absolute.
I have taken physics, and chemistry. Both of them do involve a lot of math. So does biology. Most people don’t realize that because the biology taught to non-majors in their freshman year tend to minimize the math and statistics. That comes later in the biology program.
I think it’s also people’s perception that Biology is the easy science because that’s typically what non-majors take. The problem is, the reason that’s what non-majors take is because it’s perceived as the easy science. We have a bit of a circular argument going here.
Physics has been going through a lot of change lately; I not too long ago saw an article that said now with all the quantum physics, things are less certain in physics. They now have to deal with probabilities…just like the biology they have for so long scorned. Has it led to humbling for physicists? Not a bit.
This one is also of interest, as is #793 which I won’t link to because I seem to recall three is the magic number of links that sends comments to moderation limbo.
The evolutionary process doesn’t allow for a sex “spectrum” in humans. The lack of the ability to reproduce (relatively quickly) renders them extinct and always has. Reproduce and face reality, or don’t. Whether you do or not changes nothing, you are still part of a two sex system, and no one lives forever.
iknklast, physics has been dealing with probabilities at least since 1860, when James Clerk Maxwell wrote down a probabilistic law for the speed of a particle in a gas. This started the whole branch of physics callled statistical mechanics. That’s 160 years or so now.
And Sean Carroll’s take on this likely has little to do with being a physicist, and much more to do with a prediliction for wokeness. After all (and sadly), plenty of non-physicists would also argue for sex being a spectrum.
Isn’t he the same Sean Caroll who wrote “Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo”? That was a good book explaining how development of embryo takes place under the guidance of the genes. May be I am confused..
I can’t honestly say I’m even “disappointed” by this, since I gave up on the idea of “rational people”* years ago. I’ve always liked Sean Carroll as a science communicator, though. As I have previously put it, attempting to understand what physics actually tells us about reality on a fundamental level as an interested lay person can be a frustrating endeavor, yet every once in a while you read something that makes you go “Yay! I just got ever so slightly less clueless!”** No science communicator has sparked this reaction in me more often than Carroll. I never found him particularly compelling when moving from physics into philosophy etc., and so The Big Picture is by far my least favorite book he has written. It just goes to show, once again, that clear thinking in one limited area offers no protection from group conformity, tribalism, confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, rationalization, compartmentalization, doublethink, intellectual laziness, sloppy thinking, or even just being plain wrong in every other area.
* There is no such thing as a “rational person”, a “critical thinker”, a “skeptic” etc. These are nouns. Rationality, critical thinking etc. are about doing rather than being. They are also something to perpetually strive for, not a destination you ever arrive at.
** There is, of course, always a chance that it’s the Dunning Kruger Effect telling you this…
That “stamp collecting” line has been variously attributed to Richard Feynman, Ernest Rutherford and Albert Einstein. Not sure there’s any actual bona fide citation underpinning it though …
There are a lot of “maybes” in physics, but what is most disappointing is that they get touchy when non-physicists give out opinions on physics but they don’t check with or refer to scientists in other fields before answering questions. I used to subscribe to an email feature called Big Think, which asked reader questions of leading science communicators. For some reason they assigned a question on evolution to Michio Kaku, a physicist. He claimed thY, yes, evolution has stopped.
I immediately unsubscribed.
This tweet by Sean M. Carroll disappointed me, but it didn’t surprise me. And he hasn’t replied to anyone that I can see.
Ah, yes, physicists doing biology. They nearly always do it wrong. I remember when Neil DeGrasse Tyson said something ignorant about evolution. When corrected by evolutionary biologists, he accused them of not understanding evolution.
Physics does something to brains that causes the possessors of physics brains to believe their knowledge of physics makes then an expert on everything. Tell you what, Sean Carroll, if you don’t continue to go on about biology, I’ll agree not to have a Twitter rant about quantum physics. (Don’t tell him I’m not on Twitter, so I couldn’t do that anyway.)
Just so I have this correct:
1. The existence of even one intersex, or XXY, person means that “women” do not exist as a category. Except when used in phrases like “trans women are women.”
2. False dichotomies are bad. But also, everyone who does not agree with TRA positions is a genocidal transphobe. There are no intermediate positions.
iknklast,
Sometime in the early 20th century, physics became the “queen of the sciences.” “Einstein” became cultural shorthand for “genius,” and was proclaimed the world’s smartest person. That mantle was later transferred to Stephen Hawking; unclear to me if there’s been a successor anointed yet.
I’m sure there’s some interesting cultural/historical explanation for that, probably having to do with relativity and the atom bomb and the space program (although chemistry and biology had a little something to do with that also). The fact that in recent decades the biggest “innovation” in physics from a layperson’s perspective, string theory, seems to be a bit of a dead end, maybe is eroding that a little bit.
Two tweets earlier.
“Maybe the shiny new thing that all the common folk think is a scam actually has a bit of scamminess about it.”
Sean Carroll
https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1591458576937418757
Physician heal thyself!
#4 Screechy Monkey: well, gravitational waves turned out to be for real, and they’re pretty cool, but for some reason they get very little publicity.
Screechy, one of the arguments people always made for physics being the queen of the sciences is that it was so precise. Biology deals in probabilities, variability, and ‘maybe’ or ‘probably’. Physics did math, so answers were absolute.
I have taken physics, and chemistry. Both of them do involve a lot of math. So does biology. Most people don’t realize that because the biology taught to non-majors in their freshman year tend to minimize the math and statistics. That comes later in the biology program.
I think it’s also people’s perception that Biology is the easy science because that’s typically what non-majors take. The problem is, the reason that’s what non-majors take is because it’s perceived as the easy science. We have a bit of a circular argument going here.
Physics has been going through a lot of change lately; I not too long ago saw an article that said now with all the quantum physics, things are less certain in physics. They now have to deal with probabilities…just like the biology they have for so long scorned. Has it led to humbling for physicists? Not a bit.
All Biology is Chemistry and all Chemistry is Physics is how Physics teacher explained it to me. I’ll let the experts tell me right or wrong.
Rev,
As usual, xkcd has you covered.
This one is also of interest, as is #793 which I won’t link to because I seem to recall three is the magic number of links that sends comments to moderation limbo.
And physicist heel thyself!
The evolutionary process doesn’t allow for a sex “spectrum” in humans. The lack of the ability to reproduce (relatively quickly) renders them extinct and always has. Reproduce and face reality, or don’t. Whether you do or not changes nothing, you are still part of a two sex system, and no one lives forever.
iknklast, physics has been dealing with probabilities at least since 1860, when James Clerk Maxwell wrote down a probabilistic law for the speed of a particle in a gas. This started the whole branch of physics callled statistical mechanics. That’s 160 years or so now.
And Sean Carroll’s take on this likely has little to do with being a physicist, and much more to do with a prediliction for wokeness. After all (and sadly), plenty of non-physicists would also argue for sex being a spectrum.
Isn’t he the same Sean Caroll who wrote “Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo”? That was a good book explaining how development of embryo takes place under the guidance of the genes. May be I am confused..
@#13:
No, that is biologist Sean B. Carroll, as opposed to physicist Sean M. Carroll.
Screechy @ 9 – 1520 is my favorite.
I have that cartoon hanging on my door; have had for several years. I love it.
Ophelia #15
The chemist didn’t get to say anything!!! Chemistry is important, didn’t anybody watch Breaking Bad?
I can’t honestly say I’m even “disappointed” by this, since I gave up on the idea of “rational people”* years ago. I’ve always liked Sean Carroll as a science communicator, though. As I have previously put it, attempting to understand what physics actually tells us about reality on a fundamental level as an interested lay person can be a frustrating endeavor, yet every once in a while you read something that makes you go “Yay! I just got ever so slightly less clueless!”** No science communicator has sparked this reaction in me more often than Carroll. I never found him particularly compelling when moving from physics into philosophy etc., and so The Big Picture is by far my least favorite book he has written. It just goes to show, once again, that clear thinking in one limited area offers no protection from group conformity, tribalism, confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, rationalization, compartmentalization, doublethink, intellectual laziness, sloppy thinking, or even just being plain wrong in every other area.
* There is no such thing as a “rational person”, a “critical thinker”, a “skeptic” etc. These are nouns. Rationality, critical thinking etc. are about doing rather than being. They are also something to perpetually strive for, not a destination you ever arrive at.
** There is, of course, always a chance that it’s the Dunning Kruger Effect telling you this…
That “stamp collecting” line has been variously attributed to Richard Feynman, Ernest Rutherford and Albert Einstein. Not sure there’s any actual bona fide citation underpinning it though …
There are a lot of “maybes” in physics, but what is most disappointing is that they get touchy when non-physicists give out opinions on physics but they don’t check with or refer to scientists in other fields before answering questions. I used to subscribe to an email feature called Big Think, which asked reader questions of leading science communicators. For some reason they assigned a question on evolution to Michio Kaku, a physicist. He claimed thY, yes, evolution has stopped.
I immediately unsubscribed.
This tweet by Sean M. Carroll disappointed me, but it didn’t surprise me. And he hasn’t replied to anyone that I can see.