Re:Alternative interpretations of classical physics (2019)
by Garlef on Tuesday March 23, 2021 @07:52AM
(#26553932)
What I dislike about clickbaity paper titles like this is the following:
Using a general term like "determinism" in the title of a paper might be fine for an expert audience: They will know that the paper deals with a specific definition inside a specific discussion.
But the general public will pick up on this and incorporate it into their superstitions. In the end this could (indirectly, through a funnel of regurgitations) strengthen some persons believe in pseudoscience resulting in them not vaccinating their kids or treating cancer with homeopathy because "everything is connected on the quantum level".
Scientists should be more responsible with the choice of their titles.
I think adding a discriminatory suffix to terms like "determinism" would provide a solution. Something like "Physics without infinite precision determinism: [...]" is much less likely to be misinterpreted.
Using a general term like "determinism" in the title of a paper might be fine for an expert audience: They will know that the paper deals with a specific definition inside a specific discussion.
But the general public will pick up on this and incorporate it into their superstitions. In the end this could (indirectly, through a funnel of regurgitations) strengthen some persons believe in pseudoscience resulting in them not vaccinating their kids or treating cancer with homeopathy because "everything is connected on the quantum level".
Scientists should be more responsible with the choice of their titles.
I think adding a discriminatory suffix to terms like "determinism" would provide a solution. Something like "Physics without infinite precision determinism: [...]" is much less likely to be misinterpreted.