> 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.