The method in the case of quantum physics was to meet their extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence. Einstein did not resist the findings of quantum mechanics, only their interpretations, holding out hope that he could make a hidden variable theory work. Quantum mechanics become accepted because they were able to back up their theories with experimental data that could be explained in no other way.
Like a good scientist, I’m willing to follow logic and evidence to their logical conclusions. But when I actually look at the “logic” that is being used to justify doomerist conclusions, it always seems incredibly weak (and I have looked, extensively). I think people are rejecting your arguments not because you are a rogue outsider, but because they don’t think your arguments are very good.
If my arguments are weak, it should be easy to demonstrate why. But what you’ve offered here is just another vague dismissal: “I’ve looked into this, and I’m not impressed.” That’s not engagement. That’s exactly the pattern I describe in this essay—arguments being waved away without being read, understood, or challenged on their actual substance.
You mention quantum physics. But the reason quantum theory became accepted wasn’t just because it was rigorous—it’s because it made testable predictions that no other theory could account for. Einstein didn’t reject quantum mechanics wholesale; he disagreed with its interpretation, and still treated the work with seriousness and depth. That’s what good science looks like: engagement, not hand-waving. But before that happened, it was mocked, resisted, and sidelined—even by giants like Einstein. That’s not to criticise them, but to point out that even brilliant minds struggle to follow logic when it contradicts foundational assumptions.
You say doomerism is based on bad logic. I agree. I’m not a doomer. So engage with the logic. Pick any premise from my first essay and show where the flaw lies. Or show where my conclusions don’t follow. I’ve laid everything out clearly. I want to be wrong. I’d love to be wrong.
But calling something “not very good” without identifying a single flaw just proves my point: that some ideas are rejected not because they’re invalid, but because they’re uncomfortable.
I welcome critique. But critique means specifics, not sentiment.
And while I continue to welcome comments from people who unintentionally validate the very points I’m raising, comments from those who have something more substantial to offer are welcome too.
The method in the case of quantum physics was to meet their extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence. Einstein did not resist the findings of quantum mechanics, only their interpretations, holding out hope that he could make a hidden variable theory work. Quantum mechanics become accepted because they were able to back up their theories with experimental data that could be explained in no other way.
Like a good scientist, I’m willing to follow logic and evidence to their logical conclusions. But when I actually look at the “logic” that is being used to justify doomerist conclusions, it always seems incredibly weak (and I have looked, extensively). I think people are rejecting your arguments not because you are a rogue outsider, but because they don’t think your arguments are very good.
Great. Then show me.
If my arguments are weak, it should be easy to demonstrate why. But what you’ve offered here is just another vague dismissal: “I’ve looked into this, and I’m not impressed.” That’s not engagement. That’s exactly the pattern I describe in this essay—arguments being waved away without being read, understood, or challenged on their actual substance.
You mention quantum physics. But the reason quantum theory became accepted wasn’t just because it was rigorous—it’s because it made testable predictions that no other theory could account for. Einstein didn’t reject quantum mechanics wholesale; he disagreed with its interpretation, and still treated the work with seriousness and depth. That’s what good science looks like: engagement, not hand-waving. But before that happened, it was mocked, resisted, and sidelined—even by giants like Einstein. That’s not to criticise them, but to point out that even brilliant minds struggle to follow logic when it contradicts foundational assumptions.
You say doomerism is based on bad logic. I agree. I’m not a doomer. So engage with the logic. Pick any premise from my first essay and show where the flaw lies. Or show where my conclusions don’t follow. I’ve laid everything out clearly. I want to be wrong. I’d love to be wrong.
But calling something “not very good” without identifying a single flaw just proves my point: that some ideas are rejected not because they’re invalid, but because they’re uncomfortable.
I welcome critique. But critique means specifics, not sentiment.
And while I continue to welcome comments from people who unintentionally validate the very points I’m raising, comments from those who have something more substantial to offer are welcome too.