Mathematicians and scientists have vague folk theories of what math and science are that both are blurred ancestral memories of pre-WWII logical positivism.
These theories are totally wrong, but do little *direct* harm because they are mainly ignored in practice.
-
-
It could also be that those sources are just pretty definitive
-
That is true, and many are thorough and well-written -- but with the advent of computer proof checkers one could imagine that there is now room for a discussion about how these tools change things.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That's an interesting observation. I'd guess it's more a question of demand. Every single thing I (as a member of the public) know about quantum computing comes from Scott Aaronson. I think this is because the field is hard to explain and demand for "honest pop QC" is limited
-
There's a lot more demand for pop physics/for explanations of how physics works, but even so non-crappy pop physics sources are extremely rare (while dishonest hype like "elegant universe" get most of the public bandwidth)
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.