>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?!

▲

NitpickLawyer 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> 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).

▲

cauch 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

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".

▲

NitpickLawyer 4 days ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	cauch 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think that's what the previous comment meant by "she is essentially equating Weinstein's theory to all other theoretical physics" Sure, it is an extrapolation to say "all other". But this sentence still has the point of showing how unfair and unscientific is the basis of Hossenfelder's arguments. Even if you don't know String Theory, you should stop and think "ok, but how can she pretend that conclusion is valid" (in my previous comment, I provided 3 elements she overlooked: the fact that BU and String Theory may not be the same level of bullshit-ness, the fact that having 2 different theories receiving a different treatment can be explained by other reasons that a bias for the insider, the fact that she has no access to the rate of criticism of BU-like theories that come from the inside). Even if you don't know String Theory, you should ask "did she even consider that maybe there are differences in the level of bullshit-ness that make some people criticize GU and not String Theory".

▲

cycomanic 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

▲

themafia 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> "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?

▲

janalsncm 4 days ago | parent [-]

> 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”.

▲

themafia 4 days ago | parent [-]

> 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.

▲

janalsncm 4 days ago | parent [-]

> I think Eric is a symptom and not the disease.

I agree with you on this one. It’s a symptom of scientific illiteracy, that people can’t see that a work of creative writing that makes no testable predictions about the world isn’t science.

The problem isn’t that Weinstein is too creative or his math is too impenetrable. The problem is his paper doesn’t make testable predictions. It’s a complicated exercise in world building, not science. A physics paper has well-defined terms and equations. Things that can be tested.

He said himself that it’s entertainment. He isn’t being suppressed by the DISC (“distributed ideas suppression complex”), it just turns out that fiction is a tough industry, readership is declining, and it’s a little too involved for an airport bookstore.

I don’t want him to abandon his work, I want him to engage with its critics in a serious way, not claim to be the victim of some kind of institutional conspiracy. But that would require work.

> 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."

The problem isn’t that it is inventive or impenetrable. The standard model has plenty of unintuitive aspects as a theory. The difference is that those theories made very accurate predictions about the world which explained empirical results much better than prior theories. Weinstein’s does not.

If you make an unfalsifiable claim about a teapot orbiting Jupiter, you’re not a genius whose theories are being ignored by the establishment.

> Why does the existence of his paper make you feel this obligation

It doesn’t. I was responding to your suggestion that there might be some salvageable bits from his talk/blog post, despite your belief that it isn’t correct.

> 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

It’s not up to Neil DeGrasse Tyson what makes it into the Standard Model, and if I had to guess he’s probably not up on cutting edge research anyways. The relevant question is whether a new theory can explain empirical results better than existing theories. The fact that Weinstein’s paper doesn’t even attempt to do that puts it into the category of creative writing, not science.

	▲	astrange 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> The problem is his paper doesn’t make testable predictions. Do physicists do this? String theorists mostly don't seem to try, and the most common point I've seen Sabine make is that particle physicists are happy to tell you their theories are falsifiable as long as you give them essentially infinite money to build bigger colliders, when they could possibly be doing something cheaper. I also wonder if people believe Roger Penrose is a crank; he seems to be doing the same thing when he goes around claiming consciousness is because of quantum brain tubules.