Physicist here. Your post did not make a positive impression on me, because it seems to be generally wrong.
Your belief that there are ‘philosophical’ and ‘shut-up-and-calculate’ physicists generally agrees with my anecdotal experience. However, that’s the thing: there are many physicists who are happy to think about philosophy. I think I fall into that camp. Really strange to think that there are philosophical physicists, and yet think that physicists don’t engage in philosophical discussion. Do you think we’re being muzzled? I’m quite happy with my freedom of speech, just to make this point clear.
I don’t want to just say your post is wrong, so here’s be being more specific:
From a strictly materialist perspective, doesn’t it seem rather “universe-centric” to think the reality that gave rise to the Big Bang and our universe(1) only gave rise to our particular universe?
Right, many physicists who actually have thoughts about this don’t.
And doesn’t it seem even more universe-centric to think of the supra-universal (“deeper”) reality as less significant than its product(s)?
I don’t think many physicists have strong opinions on what’s ‘more significant’. I’d say working physicists obviously have strong opinions on what they can actually work on, though. Just because people don’t work on something doesn’t mean it’s not ‘significant’, it might merely mean our current understanding is so far away that there’s no point.
Granted, we can’t know much about the deeper reality, but it seems there could be some hints about its nature in fields like quantum mechanics, relativity physics, cosmology and philosophy.
Yes.
Quantum mechanics, by dealing with the smallest “building blocks”/waves seems especially promising as a sort of island beach upon which artifacts from the surrounding sea may wash ashore.
Indeed, quantum fundamentals is a rather active field, both experimentally and theoretically.
Unfortunately though, I’ve noticed a universe-centric perspective among some scientists that seems to almost amount to a sort of theocracy.
?
For example, there is a subset of the quantum physics community who refer to themselves as the “shut up and calculate” faction. They dissuade people from asking “why” certain phenomena occur.
None of my colleagues have dissuaded me before.
The theocrats also predominate among the moderators of the physics subreddits, and they promptly censor/delete any post which they deem to be “speculation,” “philosophical,” “unproven” or a “self-idea.” “Dangerous” ideas include string theory, multiverse theories, and any thoughts which don’t conform to universe-centrism.
There’s a difference between speculation on public forums by laymen and speculation by, say, me. That sounds elitist, but stick with me. Firstly, people love to speculate. If online forums, such as on reddit, didn’t discourage it, most posts would be that. Maybe you like that, but that’s not very conducive for a general sub like r/physics. The discussion would just not really be a reflection of Physics as is done in the real world at all! Second, even just a few years in, people get a little sick of their uber driver picking them up from the Physics dept building and talking their ear off about their thoughts regarding quantum consciousness.
Most importantly, though, most of these discussions with laymen are just unproductive. Here on LW people like to complain about laymen not even understanding AI safety basics, and coming up with stupid suggestions that have been discussed to death in the 2000s. How do you think physicists feel about ideas that have been discussed to death in the 1900s, or things that are just Not Even Wrong?
It seems it would be better for science if theocrats were to simply ignore the ideas with which they disagree, rather than hide those ideas from the eyes of others.
That just doesn’t work, unless your suggestion is for professional physicists to never have online forums where they can discuss things but are also allowed to mix with laymen.
Furthermore, it seems like the “no questions” mantra is antithetical to science.
That’s the thing; controversial topics are quite happily discussed among physicists. Reddit or LW is just not where science generally happens.
Finally as a closing thought, one needs to remember that science is defined by empiricism. At the end of the day, the strict focus on falsification is just contrary to how science works in real life; most physicists I know think in effectively Bayesian terms regarding model probabilities. However, that is still empiricism, just relaxed to be okay with induction. Many physicists do enjoy pure philosophy, but we don’t pretend that they’re physics. That’s one of your biggest mistakes. You think that these things should be physics because they concern the natural world, and physicists refuse to accept such discussions. In reality, my buddies and I often chat about the fundamental nature of reality over a cold pint; we just don’t call it physics.
In addition, physicists who deal with the fundamental stuff (eg. me, but I’m not a theorist) are only a minority. The condensed matter community, for example, is likely significantly larger than the particle physics or cosmology communities. Then there’s AMO, quantum sensing (overlaps with AMO), etc...and these fields largely (not not completely, eg. quantum gravitation experiments) have little to do with metaphysics. This makes the point about online forums even more acute. Without harsh moderation, most physicists, and most physics, would simply be drowned out by the cacophony of speculation and fundamental physics.
Edit: I looked at your books too, though only the amazon preview. Congrats on the books, writing a few hundred pages is always an accomplishment. I can’t say I see any expertise beyond a pop-sci level, though. This is not a criticism, and I hope you don’t take it as such; these are pop-sci books, and don’t require more expertise than, well, a pop-sci level of expertise. They can be excellent books in their own right, I do not have the expertise to judge science communication. However, I’m not sure how to convey this without sounding like an elitist asshole, but I’ve never had productive discussions about physics with people who don’t at least have a graduate-level understanding of physics before. Note here that I am not referring to a PhD (or MSc); it is likely possible for someone who has more self-discipline than I’ll ever have to self-learn a lot of physics. However, there is a ton of material to learn before one can even be useful in a discussion. For example, scientific language is a bit of an argot, due to both tradition and necessity; in regular speech, equivocation is so common that people don’t even notice it most of the time, but such imprecise language slows discussion down a huge amount with technical subjects. Equivocation is one of the biggest issues I face when discussing science with laymen.
Thank you for your feedback. Here’s my feedback on your feedback. My words are in bold.
Your quote: Physicist here. Your post did not make a positive impression on me, because it seems to be generally wrong.
My response: I’m really sorry my post did not make a positive impression on you. As to whether it was “generally wrong,” I’ll address that based on your points that follow. In any places where I feel you misunderstood me, that is my fault, because I obviously did a terrible job explaining myself if multiple people misunderstood (which they did). I’ll try to clarify a little bit in this reply.
--
Your quote: Your belief that there are ‘philosophical’ and ‘shut-up-and-calculate’ physicists generally agrees with my anecdotal experience.
My response: Thank you. I guess this belief (the premise on which my initial post was supposed to be based) “generally agrees” with your anecdotal experience, so we’re OK so far.
--
Your quote: However, that’s the thing: there are many physicists who are happy to think about philosophy. I think I fall into that camp. Really strange to think that there are philosophical physicists, and yet think that physicists don’t engage in philosophical discussion.
My response: My point was not supposed to be that “physicists don’t engage in philosophical discussion.” It was that the non-philosophical, self-described “shut up and calculate” physicists have a bias against philosophical discussions. Philosophical physicists definitely engage in philosophical discussions. That was supposed to be one of the two main points in my original post (that the non-philosophical physicists are biased against philosophical discussions among philosophical physicists). I think we’re actually in agreement on this, but I clearly did a poor job explaining myself, since you thought we were in disagreement. My apologies...
--
Your quote of my quote: “From a strictly materialist perspective, doesn’t it seem rather “universe-centric” to think the reality that gave rise to the Big Bang and our universe(1) only gave rise to our particular universe?”
Your response: Right, many physicists who actually have thoughts about this don’t.
My response: OK, so I think we’re alright on this part.
--
Your quote of my quote: And doesn’t it seem even more universe-centric to think of the supra-universal (“deeper”) reality as less significant than its product(s)?
Your response: I don’t think many physicists have strong opinions on what’s ‘more significant’.
My response: I think we’re OK on this. I started the post out with these questions in an attempt to set the stage for philosophical thinking about physics, before mentioning the bias. However, I think this probably wasn’t effective, as people wondered why I was asking these sort of obvious questions.
--
Your quote of my original quote: Granted, we can’t know much about the deeper reality, but it seems there could be some hints about its nature in fields like quantum mechanics, relativity physics, cosmology and philosophy.
Your response: Yes.
My response: OK, again, “Yes,” makes me think we’re OK with this.
--
Your quote of my original quote: Quantum mechanics, by dealing with the smallest “building blocks”/waves seems especially promising as a sort of island beach upon which artifacts from the surrounding sea may wash ashore.
Your response: Indeed, quantum fundamentals is a rather active field, both experimentally and theoretically.
My response: So again, it seems like you don’t think I’m “generally wrong” on this point either. I guess that’s good.
--
I actually can’t afford to spend much more time on this. The main idea is that you felt my post was “generally wrong,” but I think that, in actuality, we agree on most of the points. In the places where you believed we disagreed, I don’t actually disagree with you. Again, that’s my bad, since I communicated my viewpoints so poorly that they were misunderstood.
--
Your edit: I looked at your books too, though only the amazon preview. Congrats on the books, writing a few hundred pages is always an accomplishment. I can’t say I see any expertise beyond a pop-sci level, though. This is not a criticism, and I hope you don’t take it as such; these are pop-sci books, and don’t require more expertise than, well, a pop-sci level of expertise. They can be excellent books in their own right, I do not have the expertise to judge science communication.
My response: Thanks for the congrats! Yes, the books were intended to be “for the masses,” which is “pop-sci.” However, I consider the term “pop-sci” as a compliment.
I strongly believe that the average person deserves to know, and is capable of understanding, basic concepts of time (like time dilation) and gravity (from curving spacetime). I realize that people might not need to know about the nature of time and gravity, but somehow it seems like a shame if people don’t ever have a clue about such fundamental aspects of reality. It’s rather like the way the average person could get by without knowing the Earth is round, but I think people deserve at least the opportunity to know this. If I’ve explained advanced concepts in a way that is both correct, and easy to understand in the book, then that makes me really happy.
Also, I didn’t mention the books to demonstrate some great level of “expertise.” In my first post, I didn’t mention them at all. It’s just that the response to my first post was advice that I should go and learn some foundational physics. I mentioned the books at that point only to show that I do indeed have some familiarity w/ foundational physics. After that, someone suggested I am likely to be a “crank” author. I think that means my views would be considered radical or bizarre. I’ll just let people judge for themselves, and share the book titles in a new reply to this post. The reason I didn’t do so in the first place was because I didn’t want to use LW for free marketing. I think it might be necessary to mention the titles though, in order to defend myself from the “crank” speculation?
--
Your continued edit: However, I’m not sure how to convey this without sounding like an elitist asshole, but I’ve never had productive discussions about physics with people who don’t at least have a graduate-level understanding of physics before.
My response: I don’t think you seem like an elitist asshole at all. It just seems that your experience has been different than my experience. My experience is that it’s even possible to have productive discussions about physics with teenagers. As you maybe saw, one of my books introduces teens and tweens to special and general relativity, with that in mind. I guess it partly depends upon how you define “productive discussions.” To me, a productive discussion is one in which one or both parties comes out of the discussion with new insights, or a deeper understanding than they had before the discussion. You probably have a higher ideal for productivity.
In my mind, this LW thread was a productive discussion. I learned that I must have done a very poor job explaining myself in my initial post. That’s the most obvious reason why multiple people misunderstood the points I was trying to make.
I think that next time I should use examples of well-known people who might fall into one camp or another to make my points. The reason I didn’t do so in my original post is because sometimes name-dropping makes it seem like the name-dropped people endorse everything a writer says, which isn’t fair to the name-dropped people. Furthermore, it might seem like the writer agrees with everything the name-dropped person has ever said, which would just be incorrect. Still, as a result of this discussion, I’ve concluded it’s better to use names of people, and then maybe I could add footnotes about a lack of endorsement going either way. I also was probably too sensitive to criticism of my initial post. It’s so easy to read a response in a tone of voice that’s different than that which was intended.
So anyway, thank you for a discussion that was productive (for me at least). It must have taken some time, and I sincerely appreciate your effort.
Just to be clear, many academics are also educators. So when I say productive, I generally mean productive for both sides; after all, I have many discussions that are hopefully productive but largely in a one-sided way. It’s called class.
I don’t think it’s been that productive to me, because I haven’t learnt anything new or gained a new perspective. Outreach and education do not necessarily represent productive discussion in that sense; I consider the former a duty and the latter a job. There are often surprises and productive discussions, especially when teaching, but that’s because many undergraduate students effectively have a graduate-level understanding, especially in the latter years of their undergraduate degree. Still, it is not the norm.
So really, I don’t think it’s true that philosophical discussion in general is discouraged. I think it’s more fair to say that philosophical discussion is discouraged in online forums where laypeople and physicists both inhabit. There’s nothing particularly deep about that. Physicists are just often a little tired of the kind of philosophical thought that typically comes to laymen, both because typically it is very hard to discuss anything with people who are not used to the precision of language required for scientific discussion, and because so much ink has been spilled over the centuries that most thoughts are not novel, especially when someone does not have a good understanding of the literature. While it might be reasonable to think that it’s good as long as it is productive for one side, I think it’s important to just realise that we’re people too, and I’m not going to be in patient outreach mode 100% of the time on the internet (or even 50%); most of the time I just wish that the few places I can discuss physics with random people aren’t choked up by largely unoriginal philosophy. There’s also the fact that I briefly mentioned, which is that laypeople who visit sciencey places like r/physics (or LW) often really really really really like talking about metaphysics; allowing that would just mean it’s impossible to wade through all the philosophy to find any empirical physics at all.
Basically, I still disagree with this statement:
that the non-philosophical physicists are biased against philosophical discussions among philosophical physicists
I have no encountered such bias, at least towards me, and I am one hell of a rambler. I’m also not particularly senior or anything, so it’s not like people are deferring to me or something.
Physicist here. Your post did not make a positive impression on me, because it seems to be generally wrong.
Your belief that there are ‘philosophical’ and ‘shut-up-and-calculate’ physicists generally agrees with my anecdotal experience. However, that’s the thing: there are many physicists who are happy to think about philosophy. I think I fall into that camp. Really strange to think that there are philosophical physicists, and yet think that physicists don’t engage in philosophical discussion. Do you think we’re being muzzled? I’m quite happy with my freedom of speech, just to make this point clear.
I don’t want to just say your post is wrong, so here’s be being more specific:
Right, many physicists who actually have thoughts about this don’t.
I don’t think many physicists have strong opinions on what’s ‘more significant’. I’d say working physicists obviously have strong opinions on what they can actually work on, though. Just because people don’t work on something doesn’t mean it’s not ‘significant’, it might merely mean our current understanding is so far away that there’s no point.
Yes.
Indeed, quantum fundamentals is a rather active field, both experimentally and theoretically.
?
None of my colleagues have dissuaded me before.
There’s a difference between speculation on public forums by laymen and speculation by, say, me. That sounds elitist, but stick with me. Firstly, people love to speculate. If online forums, such as on reddit, didn’t discourage it, most posts would be that. Maybe you like that, but that’s not very conducive for a general sub like r/physics. The discussion would just not really be a reflection of Physics as is done in the real world at all! Second, even just a few years in, people get a little sick of their uber driver picking them up from the Physics dept building and talking their ear off about their thoughts regarding quantum consciousness.
Most importantly, though, most of these discussions with laymen are just unproductive. Here on LW people like to complain about laymen not even understanding AI safety basics, and coming up with stupid suggestions that have been discussed to death in the 2000s. How do you think physicists feel about ideas that have been discussed to death in the 1900s, or things that are just Not Even Wrong?
That just doesn’t work, unless your suggestion is for professional physicists to never have online forums where they can discuss things but are also allowed to mix with laymen.
That’s the thing; controversial topics are quite happily discussed among physicists. Reddit or LW is just not where science generally happens.
Finally as a closing thought, one needs to remember that science is defined by empiricism. At the end of the day, the strict focus on falsification is just contrary to how science works in real life; most physicists I know think in effectively Bayesian terms regarding model probabilities. However, that is still empiricism, just relaxed to be okay with induction. Many physicists do enjoy pure philosophy, but we don’t pretend that they’re physics. That’s one of your biggest mistakes. You think that these things should be physics because they concern the natural world, and physicists refuse to accept such discussions. In reality, my buddies and I often chat about the fundamental nature of reality over a cold pint; we just don’t call it physics.
In addition, physicists who deal with the fundamental stuff (eg. me, but I’m not a theorist) are only a minority. The condensed matter community, for example, is likely significantly larger than the particle physics or cosmology communities. Then there’s AMO, quantum sensing (overlaps with AMO), etc...and these fields largely (not not completely, eg. quantum gravitation experiments) have little to do with metaphysics. This makes the point about online forums even more acute. Without harsh moderation, most physicists, and most physics, would simply be drowned out by the cacophony of speculation and fundamental physics.
Edit: I looked at your books too, though only the amazon preview. Congrats on the books, writing a few hundred pages is always an accomplishment. I can’t say I see any expertise beyond a pop-sci level, though. This is not a criticism, and I hope you don’t take it as such; these are pop-sci books, and don’t require more expertise than, well, a pop-sci level of expertise. They can be excellent books in their own right, I do not have the expertise to judge science communication. However, I’m not sure how to convey this without sounding like an elitist asshole, but I’ve never had productive discussions about physics with people who don’t at least have a graduate-level understanding of physics before. Note here that I am not referring to a PhD (or MSc); it is likely possible for someone who has more self-discipline than I’ll ever have to self-learn a lot of physics. However, there is a ton of material to learn before one can even be useful in a discussion. For example, scientific language is a bit of an argot, due to both tradition and necessity; in regular speech, equivocation is so common that people don’t even notice it most of the time, but such imprecise language slows discussion down a huge amount with technical subjects. Equivocation is one of the biggest issues I face when discussing science with laymen.
Thank you for your feedback. Here’s my feedback on your feedback. My words are in bold.
Your quote: Physicist here. Your post did not make a positive impression on me, because it seems to be generally wrong.
My response: I’m really sorry my post did not make a positive impression on you. As to whether it was “generally wrong,” I’ll address that based on your points that follow. In any places where I feel you misunderstood me, that is my fault, because I obviously did a terrible job explaining myself if multiple people misunderstood (which they did). I’ll try to clarify a little bit in this reply.
--
Your quote: Your belief that there are ‘philosophical’ and ‘shut-up-and-calculate’ physicists generally agrees with my anecdotal experience.
My response: Thank you. I guess this belief (the premise on which my initial post was supposed to be based) “generally agrees” with your anecdotal experience, so we’re OK so far.
--
Your quote: However, that’s the thing: there are many physicists who are happy to think about philosophy. I think I fall into that camp. Really strange to think that there are philosophical physicists, and yet think that physicists don’t engage in philosophical discussion.
My response: My point was not supposed to be that “physicists don’t engage in philosophical discussion.” It was that the non-philosophical, self-described “shut up and calculate” physicists have a bias against philosophical discussions. Philosophical physicists definitely engage in philosophical discussions. That was supposed to be one of the two main points in my original post (that the non-philosophical physicists are biased against philosophical discussions among philosophical physicists). I think we’re actually in agreement on this, but I clearly did a poor job explaining myself, since you thought we were in disagreement. My apologies...
--
Your quote of my quote: “From a strictly materialist perspective, doesn’t it seem rather “universe-centric” to think the reality that gave rise to the Big Bang and our universe(1) only gave rise to our particular universe?”
Your response: Right, many physicists who actually have thoughts about this don’t.
My response: OK, so I think we’re alright on this part.
--
Your quote of my quote: And doesn’t it seem even more universe-centric to think of the supra-universal (“deeper”) reality as less significant than its product(s)?
Your response: I don’t think many physicists have strong opinions on what’s ‘more significant’.
My response: I think we’re OK on this. I started the post out with these questions in an attempt to set the stage for philosophical thinking about physics, before mentioning the bias. However, I think this probably wasn’t effective, as people wondered why I was asking these sort of obvious questions.
--
Your quote of my original quote: Granted, we can’t know much about the deeper reality, but it seems there could be some hints about its nature in fields like quantum mechanics, relativity physics, cosmology and philosophy.
Your response: Yes.
My response: OK, again, “Yes,” makes me think we’re OK with this.
--
Your quote of my original quote: Quantum mechanics, by dealing with the smallest “building blocks”/waves seems especially promising as a sort of island beach upon which artifacts from the surrounding sea may wash ashore.
Your response: Indeed, quantum fundamentals is a rather active field, both experimentally and theoretically.
My response: So again, it seems like you don’t think I’m “generally wrong” on this point either. I guess that’s good.
--
I actually can’t afford to spend much more time on this. The main idea is that you felt my post was “generally wrong,” but I think that, in actuality, we agree on most of the points. In the places where you believed we disagreed, I don’t actually disagree with you. Again, that’s my bad, since I communicated my viewpoints so poorly that they were misunderstood.
--
Your edit: I looked at your books too, though only the amazon preview. Congrats on the books, writing a few hundred pages is always an accomplishment. I can’t say I see any expertise beyond a pop-sci level, though. This is not a criticism, and I hope you don’t take it as such; these are pop-sci books, and don’t require more expertise than, well, a pop-sci level of expertise. They can be excellent books in their own right, I do not have the expertise to judge science communication.
My response: Thanks for the congrats! Yes, the books were intended to be “for the masses,” which is “pop-sci.” However, I consider the term “pop-sci” as a compliment.
I strongly believe that the average person deserves to know, and is capable of understanding, basic concepts of time (like time dilation) and gravity (from curving spacetime). I realize that people might not need to know about the nature of time and gravity, but somehow it seems like a shame if people don’t ever have a clue about such fundamental aspects of reality. It’s rather like the way the average person could get by without knowing the Earth is round, but I think people deserve at least the opportunity to know this. If I’ve explained advanced concepts in a way that is both correct, and easy to understand in the book, then that makes me really happy.
Also, I didn’t mention the books to demonstrate some great level of “expertise.” In my first post, I didn’t mention them at all. It’s just that the response to my first post was advice that I should go and learn some foundational physics. I mentioned the books at that point only to show that I do indeed have some familiarity w/ foundational physics. After that, someone suggested I am likely to be a “crank” author. I think that means my views would be considered radical or bizarre. I’ll just let people judge for themselves, and share the book titles in a new reply to this post. The reason I didn’t do so in the first place was because I didn’t want to use LW for free marketing. I think it might be necessary to mention the titles though, in order to defend myself from the “crank” speculation?
--
Your continued edit: However, I’m not sure how to convey this without sounding like an elitist asshole, but I’ve never had productive discussions about physics with people who don’t at least have a graduate-level understanding of physics before.
My response: I don’t think you seem like an elitist asshole at all. It just seems that your experience has been different than my experience. My experience is that it’s even possible to have productive discussions about physics with teenagers. As you maybe saw, one of my books introduces teens and tweens to special and general relativity, with that in mind. I guess it partly depends upon how you define “productive discussions.” To me, a productive discussion is one in which one or both parties comes out of the discussion with new insights, or a deeper understanding than they had before the discussion. You probably have a higher ideal for productivity.
In my mind, this LW thread was a productive discussion. I learned that I must have done a very poor job explaining myself in my initial post. That’s the most obvious reason why multiple people misunderstood the points I was trying to make.
I think that next time I should use examples of well-known people who might fall into one camp or another to make my points. The reason I didn’t do so in my original post is because sometimes name-dropping makes it seem like the name-dropped people endorse everything a writer says, which isn’t fair to the name-dropped people. Furthermore, it might seem like the writer agrees with everything the name-dropped person has ever said, which would just be incorrect. Still, as a result of this discussion, I’ve concluded it’s better to use names of people, and then maybe I could add footnotes about a lack of endorsement going either way. I also was probably too sensitive to criticism of my initial post. It’s so easy to read a response in a tone of voice that’s different than that which was intended.
So anyway, thank you for a discussion that was productive (for me at least). It must have taken some time, and I sincerely appreciate your effort.
Just to be clear, many academics are also educators. So when I say productive, I generally mean productive for both sides; after all, I have many discussions that are hopefully productive but largely in a one-sided way. It’s called class.
I don’t think it’s been that productive to me, because I haven’t learnt anything new or gained a new perspective. Outreach and education do not necessarily represent productive discussion in that sense; I consider the former a duty and the latter a job. There are often surprises and productive discussions, especially when teaching, but that’s because many undergraduate students effectively have a graduate-level understanding, especially in the latter years of their undergraduate degree. Still, it is not the norm.
So really, I don’t think it’s true that philosophical discussion in general is discouraged. I think it’s more fair to say that philosophical discussion is discouraged in online forums where laypeople and physicists both inhabit. There’s nothing particularly deep about that. Physicists are just often a little tired of the kind of philosophical thought that typically comes to laymen, both because typically it is very hard to discuss anything with people who are not used to the precision of language required for scientific discussion, and because so much ink has been spilled over the centuries that most thoughts are not novel, especially when someone does not have a good understanding of the literature. While it might be reasonable to think that it’s good as long as it is productive for one side, I think it’s important to just realise that we’re people too, and I’m not going to be in patient outreach mode 100% of the time on the internet (or even 50%); most of the time I just wish that the few places I can discuss physics with random people aren’t choked up by largely unoriginal philosophy. There’s also the fact that I briefly mentioned, which is that laypeople who visit sciencey places like r/physics (or LW) often really really really really like talking about metaphysics; allowing that would just mean it’s impossible to wade through all the philosophy to find any empirical physics at all.
Basically, I still disagree with this statement:
I have no encountered such bias, at least towards me, and I am one hell of a rambler. I’m also not particularly senior or anything, so it’s not like people are deferring to me or something.