4 ms·

I've been a bit short with you because you've written long speculative comments without making any attempt to look up the numbers yourself. That's something to

I've been a bit short with you because you've written long speculative comments without making any attempt to look up the numbers yourself. That's something to be embarrassed about. I don't have anything at stake here, personally. I am not a string theorist, nor am I dependent on grant funding. But I've worked in and out of academia as a scientist, and it offends me to see you play-acting as a critic of science without even understanding the lay of the land.

noch 6y ago
> I've been a bit short with you because you've written long speculative comments without making any attempt to look up the numbers yourself. That's something to be embarrassed about. That's an assumption on your part, one that is both incorrect and unfortunate. (as far as theoretical physics is concerned.) Embarrassment, however, is largely irrelevant when trying to understand anything in a systematic way. > and it offends me to see you play-acting as a critic of science without even understanding the lay of the land. Offendedness. Well, we simply have different experiences and perspectives within academia. We see the land differently. If that's your threshold for offence then life must be difficult indeed. I don't envy your position. If it will somewhat assuage your being offended I should tell you that, as a mathematician, I champion science above any other human activity. But who I am and what I do should be irrelevant when testing hypotheses.