Suppose I said a particular hockey goal was a “fluke” (a stroke of luck). Then, you pointed me to a post that implied that hockey goals are not good examples of flukes (the fish). This would be a confusion caused by the fact that word “fluke” (a stroke of luck) has the same spelling and pronunciation as the word “fluke” (a type of flatfish).
Suppose you said “That bird is a fine example of a robin!” and I insisted it can’t be, because American robins have a red breast. Then you clarified that you were thinking of European robins, a very different bird that happens to be called the same thing. I would point out that my reasoning works just as well in that case, as European robins also have a red breast.
This seems more like what Vladimir was doing than your fluke example. And note you didn’t answer this question (though you thought you did):
how many readers of these books would realize that something’s wrong?
I agree that some of Vladimir’s comments can apply to both meanings of “explanation,” I was just trying to avoid conflating the two. I also think that most readers of pop-sci books generally wouldn’t be able to tell if something’s wrong, because most readers don’t check multiple sources and use Google Scholar to find the papers being cited.
What I’m disagreeing with is Vladimir’s original claim that “it’s impossible to gain any real understanding of physics from such materials.”
Almost all of the Sequences consist mostly of helpful explanations of concepts without going into full mathematical detail. I gave additional examples of non-mathematical explanations that improved my understanding in ways that informed my actions here, and wedrifid gave his own examples here. I gave one more here.
Because these all seem to be instances of improving someone’s understanding of some idea in a useful way without them acquiring full mathematical understanding of that idea, I wondered if perhaps Vladimir was using an unusual definition of “understanding” such that for him “understanding” or “real understanding” only referred to detailed mathematical understanding. But in that case his original claim that “it’s impossible to gain any real understanding of physics from [materials that don’t impart a detailed mathematical understanding]” is basically tautological, and doesn’t undermine the rationale for the original post (‘Great Explanations’).
Vladimir also seemed to claim that I can’t have evidence about whether Copenhagen is correct or incorrect without understanding all the equations involved. But that seems obviously false, so I asked if I had misunderstood him.
Suppose you said “That bird is a fine example of a robin!” and I insisted it can’t be, because American robins have a red breast. Then you clarified that you were thinking of European robins, a very different bird that happens to be called the same thing. I would point out that my reasoning works just as well in that case, as European robins also have a red breast.
This seems more like what Vladimir was doing than your fluke example. And note you didn’t answer this question (though you thought you did):
I agree that some of Vladimir’s comments can apply to both meanings of “explanation,” I was just trying to avoid conflating the two. I also think that most readers of pop-sci books generally wouldn’t be able to tell if something’s wrong, because most readers don’t check multiple sources and use Google Scholar to find the papers being cited.
What I’m disagreeing with is Vladimir’s original claim that “it’s impossible to gain any real understanding of physics from such materials.”
Almost all of the Sequences consist mostly of helpful explanations of concepts without going into full mathematical detail. I gave additional examples of non-mathematical explanations that improved my understanding in ways that informed my actions here, and wedrifid gave his own examples here. I gave one more here.
Because these all seem to be instances of improving someone’s understanding of some idea in a useful way without them acquiring full mathematical understanding of that idea, I wondered if perhaps Vladimir was using an unusual definition of “understanding” such that for him “understanding” or “real understanding” only referred to detailed mathematical understanding. But in that case his original claim that “it’s impossible to gain any real understanding of physics from [materials that don’t impart a detailed mathematical understanding]” is basically tautological, and doesn’t undermine the rationale for the original post (‘Great Explanations’).
Vladimir also seemed to claim that I can’t have evidence about whether Copenhagen is correct or incorrect without understanding all the equations involved. But that seems obviously false, so I asked if I had misunderstood him.