Comment by cycomanic
3 days ago
>From memory: Sabine says she's only doing the video because she is a real-life friend of Eric's. So that's from the start an admission that she's biased. Then she goes off to say that his paper is probably bullshit. Then she goes back to her "but so is the vast majority of theoretical research, nowadays", and she argues it's weird that scientists have no issues making fun of Weinstein but not of their own colleagues who put out papers at least as bullshit.
But that's the thing, she is essentially equating Weinstein's theory to all other theoretical physics. This is the typical dogwhistling she does, "everything else is bullshit so you might as well believe this ...". She does this sort of ambiguity all the time, and to argue that she is not trying to imply anything is just dishonest.
Now, as to the statement that all theoretical physics papers are bullshit, that's frankly bullshit. And how is she qualified to judge? Maybe in a small niche that is her area of expertise, but beyond that?!
> But that's the thing, she is essentially equating Weinstein's theory to all other theoretical physics.
That's the thing that the blog argues, but not the thing I (a complete outsider in this whole thing) got from her video. Her argument was more about how "the establishment" treats this paper vs their own bullshit papers. The way I saw the video it was more of a comment on academia's own problems than weinstein's "theory" (which, earlier she said it's likely bullshit). She's calling out the double standard. I think.
> Now, as to the statement that all theoretical physics papers are bullshit, that's frankly bullshit.
I don't think that's correct. She never said (or I never saw the videos where she did) that all new theoretical physics is bullshit. She has some valid (again, from an outsider perspective) points tho:
- just because you invent some fancy math doesn't mean it works in the physical world
- just because it's complicated doesn't mean it's novel
- not falsifiable is bad science
- not making predictions is bad science
- hiding predictions behind "the next big detector" is lazy
(that's basically what here points are, from the videos I've seen).
Even if we are generous and accept that GU was more criticized than other bullshit papers, the claim still needs to prove that the difference of treatment is due to some real bias and not a simple fluctuation.
"I saw 2 persons being judged by a judge, and turned out they were both guilty of the same crime, but the first one got less than the second one. The first one had the same letter in second position in their family name as the judge, so it's the proof that judges are biased favorably towards people who have the same second letter"
But then, the problem is that "their own bullshit papers" is doing a very heavy lifting here. The point of Hossenfelder is that String Theory is as bad as GU. But is it really the case? Hossenfelder keep saying it's true, but a lot of people are not convinced by her arguments and provide convincing reasons for not being convinced. The same kinds of reasons don't apply to GU, so it already shows that GU and String Theory are not on the same level. Even if String Theory has some flow or is misguided on some aspect, does it mean that the level of rejection in an unbiased world will obviously be the same as any other bullshit theory.
Another aspect that is unfair is that a lot of "bullshit theory within the sector" dies without any publicity. They stop rapidly because from within the sector, it is more difficult to surface them without being criticized early. For example, you can have 100 bullshit theories "within the sector" and 3 survive and surface without being as criticized as GU while 97 have been criticized "as much" as GU during their beginning which stopped them growing. Then, you can just point at one of the 3 and say "look, there is one bullshit theory there, it's the proof that scientists never confront bullshit theories when it comes from within". Without being able to quantify properly how the GU-like theories are treated when they are "within", it is just impossible to conclude "when it is from within, it is less criticized".
I think I get your point. Unfortunately I'm in no way able to speak to string theory other than what I know from pop culture, so it's way out of my league. I only commented on this thread because after reading the blog and having watched the video, it felt that I got something else from the video. Perhaps being "in" you get other nuances. That makes sense.
1 reply →
Someone else posted this video of some physicists discussing the Weinstein video and it seems they say the same thing, she is creating a false equivalency.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oipI5TQ54tA
Regarding her other points, she is definitely on the bandwagon of peddling "all academic research is bullshit". There are plenty of examples of that. Now as often there is some grain of truth underneath her points, but she is disingenuous in here arguments.
> "everything else is bullshit so you might as well believe this ...".
I think she's saying "everything else is bullshit so there's no mechanism to rightly determine where to spend the majority of your efforts." Or more appropriately "the existence of alternative theories do not detract from correct theories and never have."
From an Engineering point of view it's perfectly logical. If you're stuck you might as well cast a wider net to see if you can shake any new ideas or approaches loose. Is Weinstein's theory of everything correct? Of course not. Are there ideas within it that might lead in a better direction? I don't think you can conclusively say one way or another until you actually do the work.
> And how is she qualified to judge?
I don't have to fully understand your tool to know that it simply doesn't work in all the places you claim it does. A better question is what are her biases in reaching this conclusion?
> From an Engineering point of view it's perfectly logical
Most physics papers have not been debunked or have rebuttal papers written about them. If Weinstein was serious about his work, he would either respond to the criticism or revise his position to something which is useful. It shouldn’t be our job to dissect his theory to find what can be salvaged.
If I open a PR and it fails some CICD tests my next move should be to fix the PR or fix the tests. Not go on Joe Rogan and say my PR was just “entertainment”.
> he would either respond to the criticism
He has. Not in a particularly satisfying way, but in at least a few video interviews out there, he does offer some response along with deeper explanations of his work and position. I do not find them convincing but they exist.
> or revise his position to something which is useful
I think "revise his position" is an interesting phrasing. It seems like what you are after is for him to publicly and completely abandon the theory. Is there no room to "revise the theory [itself] to address criticisms?"
Wouldn't a fair criticism of the work itself be "it's too impenetrable and inventive for the majority of the field to show much interest or spend much effort on it." He should revise it to be simpler and to avoid tricks like the "ship in a bottle" operator. Until then it's a curiosity only for advanced players.
Is that not fair?
> It shouldn’t be our job to dissect his theory to find what can be salvaged.
I hate to do it again but "our job" is interesting phrasing. Why does the existence of his paper make you feel this obligation? In Engineering it's fun to dissect and to dismantle other peoples theories and systems. If it's so weak then why do physicists take such umbrage at such an easy task?
> Not go on Joe Rogan and say my PR was just “entertainment”.
I think there's a "cult of physics personalities" that don't appreciate when /any/ public attention is given to fringe ideas from outsiders like Eric. I honestly think that they're the most responsible for giving Eric's theories the credibility and air time they have received. Had they taken a more professional and earnest approach to his and others work I doubt it would even be a topic of discussion on "popular social interest" programs like Joe Rogan or Piers Morgan.
It's a 15 year old paper that didn't really go anywhere. There's no reason it should still be a topic of discussion. I think Eric is a symptom and not the disease.
2 replies →