The Overratedness of Astrophysics

Why are people disproportionately focusing on something with almost no practical or economic returns when there are so many more pressing questions even within physics?

Why the Universe is extremely overrated. | In the Dark (telescoper.blog)

I’ve long thought astrophysics was rather overrated. I grew up being quite interested in math and science, but I don’t think the image of Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Carl Sagan on PBS did anything to maintain my interest, and I suspect many people who were interested in science became less interested in science because they heard airheads get up and shout “WHAT IS THE MEANING OF STARS?” Of course, this seems like an obvious replacement for “WHAT IS THE MEANING OF LIFE?” by people who have already decided life has no meaning.

Once upon a time science was almost entirely accomplished by religious people, not necessarily any particular religion, but no one viewed there as being a conflict between science and religion.

The Mysterious “X-Club” That Boxed Spirituality Out of Science (beyondbelief.blog)

Inaccuracy, Eurocentrism, and Antitheism in Carl Sagan’s Cosmos | She Seeks Nonfiction

Of course, you can see the exact same social Darwinism by another name in the modern kind of so-called “skeptic” mentality that lives on and comes from the “X-Club.”

Dear "Skeptics," Bash Homeopathy and Bigfoot Less, Mammograms and War More - Scientific American Blog Network

Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics - Scientific American Blog Network

Of course, physics used to be called “natural philosophy.”

I think the only reason astrophysics is so popular is because people have already decided life is a mistake and the vastness of the dead Universe matters more because humans are physically small, and this is their nihilism, essentially. I think astrophysics is important to an extent, but we are wasting so many resources and we’re not asking the important questions in astrophysics which I think mostly have to do with panspermia, the origin of life (I tend to be skeptical of abiogenesis, but I think there are other scientific explanations rather than saying it’s inexplicable, and they don’t even seem to be on the table,) energy sources, and possible habitation on other planets because it has already been decided life is meaningless and the only things that matter are these “pure” questions that don’t involve us. I think that idea is nonsense.

Additionally, I think the replication crisis in the social sciences can only be solved by biophysics and true artificial intelligence, because we need a deeper explanation for how the mind works. This has been one of my biggest interests since I used to be primarily interested in linguistics and cognitive science before I decided it was not very rigorous and this whole thing with Daniel Everett, who got banned by the Brazilian government from seeing the Pirahã because he was considered racist by them, and has his “culture fire” theory which I jokingly like to compare to the “world ice theory” of the Nazis as being an equal non-explanation. The original replication crisis was actually due to Daryl Bem which is another issue, but the matter is there’s not only no theory that could prove or disprove something as far out there as ESP, there’s no theory that could prove or disprove something as relatively tame as universal grammar. Of course, Noam Chomsky himself said in a video I watched that “no one cares about the mathematics of biology” which is falling into the same trap so I think Chomsky himself is partially to blame for the state of his linguistics beyond the fact he focuses on talking politics all the time and never himself connects his politics to his science.

Daryl Bem proved ESP is real. Which means science is broken. (slate.com)

Noam Chomsky - Mathematics, Language, and Abstract Objects - YouTube

I focus on the overratedness of astrophysics and its causes because I would like for people to understand that the future is most likely in biophysics regardless of whether or not people are particularly focusing on it as well as generative AI etc. Carl Sagan probably has about as much to do with the lack of people studying in STEM as shows like The Big Bang Theory do, because they are the real people behind those kinds of stereotypes which are not true of intelligent people in general.

Rolf Degen on X: "People automatically assume that members of a group they belong to are more intelligent than others. And not just Mensa members. https://t.co/KQW978Q6DB https://t.co/bW23fGfAQf" / X (twitter.com)

Is "Big Bang Theory" Bad for Science? | Discover Magazine

Additionally, I blame political factors that have absolutely nothing directly to do with science for contributing to the current lack of scientific progress.

Monopoly on Knowledge: The Era of Epistemic Security (substack.com)