4 ms·

So we are now at the point that peer reviewed papers are being written as a response to YouTube videos, with timestamped YouTube links in the paper? Has this h

So we are now at the point that peer reviewed papers are being written as a response to YouTube videos, with timestamped YouTube links in the paper? Has this happened before? Is this the mark of a new era in scientific research? Not sure if should be asking this seriously or not.

n4r9 6y ago
I don't see much reason for taking Weinstein's proposed "theory" seriously. Or much else that he says for that matter, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. However, he's found a platform and I suppose that's pressured academia into demonstrating that they're not ignoring a self-proclaimed lone outcast genius.
- nbardy 6y ago
  This is a incredibly contrived version of events. Whether Weinstein's theory is correct or not. He's had a career in mathematics and isn't a self proclaimed lone out cast genius. His peers recognize him and he's decided to do this outside of Academia for being burned in the past.
  - n4r9 6y ago
    As I understand it he got a PhD from Harvard then did a couple of stints at other institutions (without writing any further research) and then moved into industry a long time ago. The only researcher I have seen supporting his work is Frenkel, conversely there are many pieces by academics which are critical of his claims.
ineedasername 6y ago
It's not ivory tower. Research needs to be structured in some form or fashion: I don't care if it's APA style or whatever, but a YouTube lecture video certainly doesn't have any reasonable degree of structure for something proposed as a groundbreaking ToE when the lecturer hasn't also presented more concrete documentation somewhere else. If the author of this post had some compelling research from Weinstein that Weinstein had tossed up on his blog and was complaining about it not being peer-reviewed, I'd say sure-- there's a bit of ivory-tower-ism. But it seems a pretty valid complaint against a scientist when the primary material for their grand theory is a YouTube video. In fact after 8 years without much more than that, I'm surprised anyone paid enough attention to bother addressing the theory at all. Pretty much anyone in any job can't propose a single thing without giving specific reasons justifying it. If Weinstein isn't willing to pass that bar, it's not some kind of insider's-club to dismiss what he's done as insufficient.
zokier 6y ago
I can't find the “A Response to Geometric Unity” paper actually published anywhere, implying that it hasn't received peer review in the conventional sense.
- SurfingToad 6y ago
  Weinstein doesn't 'believe' in peer review ...
qqj 6y ago
This is crackpot physics. The only reason this gets any sort of publicity is because Mr. Weinstein has a (non-scientific) podcast and is associated with Joe Rogan and Sam Harris. People wasting their time invalidating the work of a man who can't be bothered to even publish it is completely ludicrous.
macinjosh 6y ago
Sounds like you're someone who enjoys gates and keeping them.

n4r9 6y ago

I don't see much reason for taking Weinstein's proposed "theory" seriously. Or much else that he says for that matter, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. However, he's found a platform and I suppose that's pressured academia into demonstrating that they're not ignoring a self-proclaimed lone outcast genius.

nbardy 6y ago
This is a incredibly contrived version of events. Whether Weinstein's theory is correct or not. He's had a career in mathematics and isn't a self proclaimed lone out cast genius. His peers recognize him and he's decided to do this outside of Academia for being burned in the past.
- n4r9 6y ago
  As I understand it he got a PhD from Harvard then did a couple of stints at other institutions (without writing any further research) and then moved into industry a long time ago. The only researcher I have seen supporting his work is Frenkel, conversely there are many pieces by academics which are critical of his claims.

ineedasername 6y ago

It's not ivory tower. Research needs to be structured in some form or fashion: I don't care if it's APA style or whatever, but a YouTube lecture video certainly doesn't have any reasonable degree of structure for something proposed as a groundbreaking ToE when the lecturer hasn't also presented more concrete documentation somewhere else. If the author of this post had some compelling research from Weinstein that Weinstein had tossed up on his blog and was complaining about it not being peer-reviewed, I'd say sure-- there's a bit of ivory-tower-ism. But it seems a pretty valid complaint against a scientist when the primary material for their grand theory is a YouTube video. In fact after 8 years without much more than that, I'm surprised anyone paid enough attention to bother addressing the theory at all. Pretty much anyone in any job can't propose a single thing without giving specific reasons justifying it. If Weinstein isn't willing to pass that bar, it's not some kind of insider's-club to dismiss what he's done as insufficient.

zokier 6y ago

I can't find the “A Response to Geometric Unity” paper actually published anywhere, implying that it hasn't received peer review in the conventional sense.

SurfingToad 6y ago
Weinstein doesn't 'believe' in peer review ...

qqj 6y ago

This is crackpot physics. The only reason this gets any sort of publicity is because Mr. Weinstein has a (non-scientific) podcast and is associated with Joe Rogan and Sam Harris. People wasting their time invalidating the work of a man who can't be bothered to even publish it is completely ludicrous.

macinjosh 6y ago

Sounds like you're someone who enjoys gates and keeping them.