Editing 675: Revolutionary

| titletext = I mean, what's more likely -- that I have uncovered fundamental flaws in this field that no one in it has ever thought about, or that I need to read a little more? Hint: it's the one that involves less work.

The comic contrasts brilliant revolutionary scientific thought with the simplistic arrogance of assuming one understands the current scientific theory enough to correct it, known under the {{w|Dunning Kruger effect}}. The character with the goatee has a degree in {{w|philosophy}}, and perhaps has certain ideas of his own about how the world should fundamentally be described by physics. He has studied Einstein's {{w|theory of special relativity}} for less than an hour and thinks he has found a flaw. When confronted about this, he considers the objection as based in {{w|dogma}}, and remains so confident that he wants to email the "president of physics". His ignorance of the field is emphasized by thinking that the entire field of physics has a president - although certain important organizations such as the {{w|American Physical Society}} do have presidents.

[[Cueball]] concedes that it is possible for such a revolutionary idea to come from a relative outsider. One example is {{w|Albert Einstein}}'s own formulation of {{w|special relativity}}, which came while he was working at a patent office in Switzerland, although he did already have a Ph.D in physics. A {{w|thought experiment}} considers some hypothesis, theory, or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences.

The "racecar on a train" idea alludes to thought experiments involving {{w|Frame_of_reference#Simple_example|frames of reference}}, which are important in relativity. Special relativity was famously established using some thought experiments about moving objects. However, some searchers elaborated more complicated thought experiments and claimed they had proven relativity was self-contradictory. Examples include {{w|twin paradox}} (both of the twins are younger than the other, until you stop assuming acceleration phases can be neglected) or {{w|ladder paradox}} (ladder is both smaller and larger than the garage, until you consider seriously the problems with defining simultaneity for remote locations in relativity). Apparently the philosopher complicated Einstein's train thought experiment by adding a racecar, and found contradictions which prove special relativity is inconsistent. However, most likely scenario is that the "racecar on a train" is too complicated for goatee man to find correct conclusions.

 

The title text is posing a question about the likelihood of two scenarios (possibly to the person with the philosophy degree):

 

This might be a self-referential title text as this question could be considered a simple thought experiment. The philosopher should be able to overturn his theory using this simple thought experiment which reflects the second panel. While his theory is not widely believed the joke is that the philosopher could overturn his first thought experiment (racecar on train) with this thought experiment.

 

[[Randall]] hints that believing you have found fundamental flaws in a theory is much easier than doing more research on it. This is possibly a statement about using Occam's Razor in arguments, which says the simpler answer is the more likely one, which is commonly brought up in {{w|Philosophy|philosophy}}. Usually, when someone with little understanding of the subject thinks that they have found a flaw, it takes only a little bit more reading to discover that the flaw is in fact completely explained already.

:Cueball: Yes, widely-believed theories are ''on occasion'' overturned by simple thought experiments.