elharo comments on Rationality Quotes May 2013 - Less Wrong

6 Post author: katydee 03 May 2013 08:02PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (387)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: elharo 17 May 2013 11:51:52AM 0 points [-]

Suppose that, unlike in the “stone soup” scenario I outlined above, it eventually becomes clear that quantum annealing can be made to work on thousands of qubits, but that it’s a dead end as far as getting a quantum speedup is concerned. Suppose the evidence piles up that simulated annealing on a conventional computer will continue to beat quantum annealing, if even the slightest effort is put into optimizing the classical annealing code. If that happens, then I predict that the very same people now hyping D-Wave will turn around and—without the slightest acknowledgment of error on their part—declare that the entire field of quantum computing has now been unmasked as a mirage, a scam, and a chimera. The same pointy-haired bosses who now flock toward quantum computing, will flock away from it just as quickly and as uncomprehendingly. Academic QC programs will be decimated, despite the slow but genuine progress that they’d been making the entire time in a “parallel universe” from D-Wave. People’s contempt for academia is such that, while a D-Wave success would be trumpeted as its alone, a D-Wave failure would be blamed on the entire QC community.

--Scott Aaronson, D-Wave: Truth finally starts to emerge

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 21 May 2013 05:01:42AM 0 points [-]

People’s contempt for academia is such that, while a D-Wave success would be trumpeted as its alone, a D-Wave failure would be blamed on the entire QC community.

Well, academia itself has been attempting to get away from doing the opposite. This is most noticeable in fields like medicine and especially psychology, where anyone disagreeing with whatever the consensus is at the moment is considered an anti-scientific flat-earther, whereas the fact that this consensus itself nearly reverses every couple decades is rarely brought up. Furthermore, on the occasions when someone does bring it up, the standard response is to say that the strength of science is that it can change it's consensus.

Comment author: satt 22 May 2013 01:47:14AM 2 points [-]

This is most noticeable in fields like medicine and especially psychology, where anyone disagreeing with whatever the consensus is at the moment is considered an anti-scientific flat-earther, whereas the fact that this consensus itself nearly reverses every couple decades is rarely brought up.

Which vicennial cycles of academic consensus have you found most noticeable?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 22 May 2013 06:08:04AM 2 points [-]

Well, the standard example is nutrition advice. Other reasonably well-known examples include whether post-menopausal women should take estrogen supplements, and how dangerous marijuana is. An example with a longer period is the whole issue with eugenics.

Comment author: satt 22 May 2013 09:01:38PM 0 points [-]

I thought you might be thinking of nutrition and something like eugenics, but wasn't sure because I didn't think they fitted the criteria that well. Anyway, thanks for indulging my curiosity.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 24 May 2013 05:10:54AM 0 points [-]

One interesting thing about eugenics, is that many of the people who supported the consensus on it while it was popular are still considered respectable whose support for eugenics is downplayed. Conversely, the people who opposed it while it was popular are still considered anti-science loons through the popular telling of misleading versions of history.

Comment author: gwern 01 June 2013 09:36:41PM *  0 points [-]

whether post-menopausal women should take estrogen supplements, and how dangerous marijuana is

How many times has the academic consensus on those reversed, and does that match your original claim that for these century-plus old fields like medicine,

the fact that this consensus itself nearly reverses every couple decades is rarely brought up

?

EDIT: feel free to reply to my challenge any time, Eugine.