3 ms·

Can't speak for everyone else, but I personally think you are misrepresented the Eric Weinstein story. From all that I have read about him, it seems like the ac

by typon 6y ago

Can't speak for everyone else, but I personally think you are misrepresented the Eric Weinstein story. From all that I have read about him, it seems like the academic peer review system did it's job: kept a charlatan with half baked ideas out of reputable journals. Sometimes when no one takes you seriously it doesn't necessarily mean there is a conspiracy against you.

loceng 6y ago
"kept a charlatan with half baked ideas out of reputable journals." LOL. Citations needed. Please point to the peer reviewed criticism that disproved his math. You've clearly never watched him speak to people about mathematics - there hasn't been a person he hasn't been able to dance with when discussing mathematics/physics principles.
- andrekandre 6y ago
  criticism that disproved his math has weinstein made any testable predictions with his theory/math?
  - loceng 6y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7rd04KzLcg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7rd04KzLcg - him releasing the video of his multi-hour long guest lecture. He's working on publishing a paper version soon to hash out all the math for people. As far as I know predictions wise, all of the math equations fit within his foundation, allowing a connection between string theory and relatively - which AFAIK didn't previously have math that allowed them to interconnect/co-exist. He's been trying for 15 years to get people in physics interested in it - and realized he has run into what he calls DISC and GIN, as mechanisms that keep outsiders ideas out and status quo narratives perpetuated. And so he's built an audience to educate, to share interviews/talks with high level conversation with a wide range of people, and build momentum/attention for his Geometric Unity theory because the existing institutions seem so indoctrinated into the last 50 years that they aren't looking into other ideas (yet); and an example of this is right here on HN, the previous commenter who called him a charlatan - with what experience are they themselves basing that off of, or who did they hear that narrative from, and how much time did that person invest investigating [interesting how invest is in the word investigating, it takes time which is an investment] and did they actually engage with Eric to see if they perhaps weren't understanding themselves and so then Eric could help them understand, etc.
- typon 6y ago
  Fortunately science is not about being able to dance with people in a conversation or showmanship of any sort - it's about making falsifiable hypotheses and then carrying out experiments to test them. It requires a lot of tedious work where you have to convince your peers that your ideas are solid and worthy of publication. If someone fails to do that, maybe, just maybe, the reason is not a vast conspiracy against this person because his ideas are too powerful and academia too stupid to see the truth, but rather the ideas could just be wrong.

by typon 6y ago

loceng 6y ago

"kept a charlatan with half baked ideas out of reputable journals." LOL. Citations needed. Please point to the peer reviewed criticism that disproved his math. You've clearly never watched him speak to people about mathematics - there hasn't been a person he hasn't been able to dance with when discussing mathematics/physics principles.

andrekandre 6y ago
criticism that disproved his math has weinstein made any testable predictions with his theory/math?
- loceng 6y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7rd04KzLcg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7rd04KzLcg - him releasing the video of his multi-hour long guest lecture. He's working on publishing a paper version soon to hash out all the math for people. As far as I know predictions wise, all of the math equations fit within his foundation, allowing a connection between string theory and relatively - which AFAIK didn't previously have math that allowed them to interconnect/co-exist. He's been trying for 15 years to get people in physics interested in it - and realized he has run into what he calls DISC and GIN, as mechanisms that keep outsiders ideas out and status quo narratives perpetuated. And so he's built an audience to educate, to share interviews/talks with high level conversation with a wide range of people, and build momentum/attention for his Geometric Unity theory because the existing institutions seem so indoctrinated into the last 50 years that they aren't looking into other ideas (yet); and an example of this is right here on HN, the previous commenter who called him a charlatan - with what experience are they themselves basing that off of, or who did they hear that narrative from, and how much time did that person invest investigating [interesting how invest is in the word investigating, it takes time which is an investment] and did they actually engage with Eric to see if they perhaps weren't understanding themselves and so then Eric could help them understand, etc.
typon 6y ago
Fortunately science is not about being able to dance with people in a conversation or showmanship of any sort - it's about making falsifiable hypotheses and then carrying out experiments to test them. It requires a lot of tedious work where you have to convince your peers that your ideas are solid and worthy of publication. If someone fails to do that, maybe, just maybe, the reason is not a vast conspiracy against this person because his ideas are too powerful and academia too stupid to see the truth, but rather the ideas could just be wrong.