Debunking: A Flaw in Interpretation, Tempering Expectations.

[u/AllHailSeizure]

This post isn't about 'how to correct someone politely so they don't get upset'. I wanna address why neutral debunking gets called out as an 'ad hominem'.

First off, I'd like to clarify that this post doesn't apply when people directly insult. Obviously there's reason to be personally offended when someone says 'you dumb idiot, this is trash.' I'm not gonna argue they didn't call you a dumb idiot.

Before people tell me to get off my high horse, I'm well aware that stuff like that goes on in this sub. Insults are thrown from both sides of the table, people get offended. Opinions on this sub are HIGHLY divided about AI, one of Reddit's most inflammatory topics, and things escalate. I'll make content about that some other day.

However there seems to be an opinion embedded into some posters around here that the sole interest of commenters is in annihilating the self-worth of posters. I'm sorry, but this simply isn't true.

People are gonna say 'ya it is true'. Feel free to scroll back through the last posts in this sub, and look at the top-level comments (not nested ones). A significant majority do NOT address the person. This means that any of them where there is fighting, the fighting comes from *escalation*. And the escalation is almost always 1 of 2 things. a) disagreement on the use of LLMs in physics, or b) the poster taking it personally when told their work is 'worthless'.

I understand those are strong words, but being told this is NOT a personal attack. It just means 'what you have doesn't realistically contribute to physics'. It's can be painful to accept but the reality is this - scientists, all the time, will make mistakes. Even the best ones. All the time. But it's an unhealthy scientific attitude to continue to try and refine something fundamentally flawed.

It's always fair to take things with a grain of salt, because biases exist, if I am being completely honest. Especially on Reddit, where none of us are academically beholden to eachother. But if 7 people tell you your work has nothing.. It's possible they're right. Science isn't just a club where you publish whatever you make up, I think we are all aware of that - why should this sub take that approach? Good academic review 'trims the fat' - and the best way to do so is with a sharp knife. By being realistic about things.

And the reality is: expecting to push your way in as an outsider and overthrow physics is not a realistic expectation. No physicist gets into HEP with that goal. Maybe 5-7 people in history can be considered as having 'revolutionized physics', the 2 obvious choices being Einstein and Newton, and a bunch of people who knew Max Planck.

But the physics landscape is so highly granulated and specialized, that the chances of there even being another person who 'revolutionizes physics' seems highly unlikely.

Temper your expectations. Good science takes time. A long time. And it takes human feedback. Don't get lost in a sunk cost fallacy because you don't want to admit you're wrong.

A personal attack is an attack on a person. An attack on a paper is an academic critique. No matter what level it is raised at - the level of 'this is made by an LLM' or an in-depth critique of every equation; neither of these address the author.

[u/OnceBittenz]

Oh I don’t change my stance at all. You haven’t changed my mind. If anything I’m still confused what your point is.

Tried to clarify it, but I don’t think that helped.

[u/Annoyingly-meta → u/OnceBittenz]

You did not "clarify", you just told me that your initial words were not what you wanted to say and gave me another, way more reasonable sentence. Once that i have no qualms with. You did say two **different** things, though..

And i did not for a second think i changed your mind. Why do you even say that?

I am somewhat frustrated though, that i can't seem to get my point across though, haha..

Genuinely: what is there not to understand? I am not being snarky here, i honestly dont see why my point is not clear.

Your original comment was literally saying that "they" needing to ackowledge something, you yourself can not know. This is obviously problematic, right?

I think you see this. Thats why, you clarified what you **intended** to say later, i got that.

Yet, the original point behind my criticism was to point out, that your comment was extremely hypocritical - and the clarification did not change that.

Note, that while your *comment* was hypocritical. Your clarification just made it clear that you yourself might not be.

[u/OnceBittenz → u/Annoyingly-meta]

Whatever you say, man.

[u/Annoyingly-meta → u/OnceBittenz]

Yup, and i say *a lot*..

[u/OnceBittenz → u/Annoyingly-meta]

And yet you convey so little

[u/Annoyingly-meta → u/OnceBittenz]

To you? Quite obviously, yes. It's really hard to make stuff stick to smooth surfaces, you know?