3 ms·
As a researcher, I think he is dismissive of Blum's work. Let's take a moment to change perspective: Imagine you worked for years on something and finally upl
by naturalgradient 9y ago
As a researcher, I think he is dismissive of Blum's work.
Let's take a moment to change perspective:
Imagine you worked for years on something and finally uploaded it on ArXiv, waiting for the community to weigh in. The following characters appear:
1. Someone known in the field does not bother reading it but says you are probably wrong, bets money on you being wrong and says he does not want to be bothered with it. How would you feel?
2. Someone else known in the community starts collating information/comments to help verify the proof or find instructive mistakes.
3. Another mathematician also believes Blum is wrong just because it is statistically likely, and does not want to spend time on something that will most likely lead nowhere. She keeps this opinion to herself and simply does not engage with the material. If approached, she declines to comment because she says he did not have time to check the proof.
Aaronson went for option 1 and in my highly personal opinion, it's the worst of the ones listed. It's standing at the sidelines being snarky. Just because he may as well be right does not make this behaviour any better.
It is the equivalent of laughing in an undergrad lecture when someone asks a naive question.
- andrewflnr 9y agoAaronson would far rather take option 3. The only reason he doesn't is that his fans won't let him.
- lgas 9y agoHe could take option 3 regardless of what his fans "won't let him" do.
- EpicEng 9y agoBut he didn't just come out and say it; he was responding to numerous people who were asking him about it.
- Analemma_ 9y agoI think we're talking past each other and don't actually disagree. To clarify my last post: I don't approve of what Aaronson did. I think it was a dumb thing to say and (assuming my hypothesis is correct that he did it out of frustration at constantly being pestered to comment on CS news) he instead should've cooled off and, as you say, taken option 3. I think he was aiming his statements at his fans, not academia, and in his frustration forgot that there's no such thing anymore as a message only directed at one group. I just want the problem with his behavior to be accurately diagnosed, because I think (again, I could be wrong) the solution is "better manage your temper with your non-academia fans" and not "rethink your relationship with other academics".
- naturalgradient 9y agoThank you for clarifying this
- santaclaus 9y ago> Someone known in the field does not bother reading it but says you are probably wrong Sounds like most academic paper reviews!