3 ms·

I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until hearing this admission of his: https://youtu.be/l1jTUhwWJYA?t=802 https://youtu.be/l1jTUhwWJYA?t=802 I

by prvc 6y ago

I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until hearing this admission of his: https://youtu.be/l1jTUhwWJYA?t=802 https://youtu.be/l1jTUhwWJYA?t=802 In a technical field such as physics or mathematics, "the technical details" are at minimum of paramount importance, and perhaps even constitute everything of importance. You can't cry victimhood over your colleagues not filling in the gaps and taking care of the "technical" problems for you (presumably with the credit flowing to you anyway). Now that he is very wealthy, I don't see why he couldn't hire a few young physicists to do this work for him, if he had enough confidence in his idea, btw. Horrible attitude which puts him in crank territory, imho.

mgamache 6y ago
Horrible attitude? I don't see a horrible attitude, nor does one's attitude have any bearing on ones' truth claims. Newton was famously an asshat.
- prvc 6y ago
  >nor does one's attitude have any bearing on ones' truth claims. Newton was famously an asshat I never said that it would. I have nothing bad to say about Newton, either--- either personally or otherwise. I'm not sure about the exact meaning of the term, "asshat", and I don't care to research it, though.
  - jariel 6y ago
    "Horrible attitude which puts him in crank territory, imho." You literally attributed his 'horrible attitude' to putting him in 'crank territory' i.e. 'Common synonyms for crank include crackpot and kook.' I'm in no position to comment on the nature of his work, but there's an unhealthy amount of ad-hominem here. Maybe it's fair to speculate a bit but I don't think we can just say 'bad attitude -> crap science' etc..
    - prvc 6y ago
      To clarify, regarding crankhood: it is the lack of details presented in the "theory", combined with his inaccurate view of how science is conducted ("others not doing all the work for me" == "it's being suppressed due a conspiracy"), not his attitude per sei (although that does comprehend the aforementioned facts in some sense), which does the trick.
rapsey 6y ago
> Now that he is very wealthy You get this from where?
- akvadrako 6y ago
  Based on his podcasts he was for many years a quant at Thiel Capitol. Assuming he's wealthy is giving him the benefit of the doubt.
  - rapsey 6y ago
    Being a quant does not mean being very wealthy. On his podcast he has said himself he is in no way rich. He has a day job, one which probably pays well. Calling him very wealthy can not be correct.
    - akvadrako 6y ago
      Wealthy enough to hire a few postdoc-months. If he's any good he must have made upwards of $300k/year.
rapsey 6y ago
> You can't cry victimhood over your colleagues not filling in the gaps and taking care of the "technical" problems for you (presumably with the credit flowing to you anyway). Papers commonly have multiple authors. Why would it be an issue to have multiple people work on different aspects of it? Being shunned from your department for personal reasons without consideration on the merit of the theory is an entirely different matter.
- prvc 6y ago
  Like it or not, ideally, there ought to be a slight bias in favor of the status quo in terms of revolutionary knowledge claims. That friction counteracts the unknown, unexamined, potential deficiencies of the new theory. Furthermore, a "put-up or shut up" standard is also appropriate. There are much, much better reasons to be skeptical and critical of authorities and institutions. I feel connecting his theory to this general attitude serves to marginally discredit the latter in net. Which is why a group like Vice would pounce on a story like this.
  - rapsey 6y ago
    > Like it or not, ideally, there ought to be a slight bias in favor of the status quo in terms of revolutionary knowledge claims. Slight bias should not entail preventing you defending your PhD thesis or throwing you out of the department. > I feel connecting his theory to this general attitude serves to marginally discredit the latter in net. Which is why a group like Vice would pounce on a story like this. I wonder how you would react if your life's work resulted you in being outcast from your community and not even given a chance to defend yourself. It is so easy to have no compassion from people you do not know personally. Maybe you should look in the mirror to find some more instances of horrible attitude.
    - threatofrain 6y ago
      Eric Weinstein is very wealthy, has many supporters, is invited to many talkshows, and holds an important position in industry that enables him to have many connections. If he can't find professional support, then that is a smell. Compare to Mochizuki, who is in fact a career mathematician, but is also having trouble finding support.
jariel 6y ago
Actually, your link to 'evidence' I don't think really supports your case. I see a guy empathetically admitting his technical faults, and who also seems to be bullied out of academia. Einstein was notoriously technically weak and this is not entirely uncommon in many fields. I disagree with your assessment that he believes the 'details are irrelevant' (admittedly, I listened for a few minutes at your link and he didn't say that), rather it would seem logically that at least as a 'first step' the details are not - intuition usually comes before the details. Unless you have actual evidence that he really believes his ideas should be accepted purely on the basis of their conceptual novelty irrespective of their technical merit, I don't think it's fair to put words in his mouth. (Maybe your link was to the wrong spot?). I don't know what to make of it - it seems on one hand like a giant 'attention scheme' PR campaign, on another like a man down his own rabbit hole, but I sense on some level there's some good faith however lacking in self-awareness there may be on his own behalf. None of the commenters here as of the time I've written this seem to be willing to take it on at face value, granted, very few people could, but still, we seem to be posting ad-hominem instead of references to serious discussions of the work. If it's quackery then hopefully it should be obviously outed as that. If there's 'something' there, even some legit neat ideas, that should be recognized as well. Edit: I should add, I'm entirely sympathetic to anyone willing to take a serious stab at hard problems. There's no way this guy is actually devious, at worst he lacks self awareness, but there's at least Art in that. As long as people are not taking up research money with 'quackery' then it's great that people are storming the gates of the unknown.
stareatgoats 6y ago
I have no idea if Eric Weinstein is a misunderstood genius or not. Hopefully history will redeem him if he is. This caveat at the top of his research paper is not indicative of trustworthy, serious science though: > ∗The Author is not a physicist and is no longer an active academician (...) This work of entertainment is a draft of work in progress which is the property of the author and thus may not be built upon, renamed, or profited from without express permission of the author. ©Eric R Weinstein, 2021, All Rights Reserved."[0] Given such a glaring admission, I'm surprised at the pushback the parent comment is getting. Or is it worded like this for some obscure, legal reason? [0] https://geometricunity.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/Geometric_Unity-Draft-April-1st-2021.pdf https://geometricunity.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/Geometric...

by prvc 6y ago

mgamache 6y ago

Horrible attitude? I don't see a horrible attitude, nor does one's attitude have any bearing on ones' truth claims. Newton was famously an asshat.

prvc 6y ago
>nor does one's attitude have any bearing on ones' truth claims. Newton was famously an asshat I never said that it would. I have nothing bad to say about Newton, either--- either personally or otherwise. I'm not sure about the exact meaning of the term, "asshat", and I don't care to research it, though.
- jariel 6y ago
  "Horrible attitude which puts him in crank territory, imho." You literally attributed his 'horrible attitude' to putting him in 'crank territory' i.e. 'Common synonyms for crank include crackpot and kook.' I'm in no position to comment on the nature of his work, but there's an unhealthy amount of ad-hominem here. Maybe it's fair to speculate a bit but I don't think we can just say 'bad attitude -> crap science' etc..
  - prvc 6y ago
    To clarify, regarding crankhood: it is the lack of details presented in the "theory", combined with his inaccurate view of how science is conducted ("others not doing all the work for me" == "it's being suppressed due a conspiracy"), not his attitude per sei (although that does comprehend the aforementioned facts in some sense), which does the trick.

rapsey 6y ago

> Now that he is very wealthy You get this from where?

akvadrako 6y ago
Based on his podcasts he was for many years a quant at Thiel Capitol. Assuming he's wealthy is giving him the benefit of the doubt.
- rapsey 6y ago
  Being a quant does not mean being very wealthy. On his podcast he has said himself he is in no way rich. He has a day job, one which probably pays well. Calling him very wealthy can not be correct.
  - akvadrako 6y ago
    Wealthy enough to hire a few postdoc-months. If he's any good he must have made upwards of $300k/year.

rapsey 6y ago

> You can't cry victimhood over your colleagues not filling in the gaps and taking care of the "technical" problems for you (presumably with the credit flowing to you anyway). Papers commonly have multiple authors. Why would it be an issue to have multiple people work on different aspects of it? Being shunned from your department for personal reasons without consideration on the merit of the theory is an entirely different matter.

prvc 6y ago
Like it or not, ideally, there ought to be a slight bias in favor of the status quo in terms of revolutionary knowledge claims. That friction counteracts the unknown, unexamined, potential deficiencies of the new theory. Furthermore, a "put-up or shut up" standard is also appropriate. There are much, much better reasons to be skeptical and critical of authorities and institutions. I feel connecting his theory to this general attitude serves to marginally discredit the latter in net. Which is why a group like Vice would pounce on a story like this.
- rapsey 6y ago
  > Like it or not, ideally, there ought to be a slight bias in favor of the status quo in terms of revolutionary knowledge claims. Slight bias should not entail preventing you defending your PhD thesis or throwing you out of the department. > I feel connecting his theory to this general attitude serves to marginally discredit the latter in net. Which is why a group like Vice would pounce on a story like this. I wonder how you would react if your life's work resulted you in being outcast from your community and not even given a chance to defend yourself. It is so easy to have no compassion from people you do not know personally. Maybe you should look in the mirror to find some more instances of horrible attitude.
  - threatofrain 6y ago
    Eric Weinstein is very wealthy, has many supporters, is invited to many talkshows, and holds an important position in industry that enables him to have many connections. If he can't find professional support, then that is a smell. Compare to Mochizuki, who is in fact a career mathematician, but is also having trouble finding support.

jariel 6y ago

Actually, your link to 'evidence' I don't think really supports your case. I see a guy empathetically admitting his technical faults, and who also seems to be bullied out of academia. Einstein was notoriously technically weak and this is not entirely uncommon in many fields. I disagree with your assessment that he believes the 'details are irrelevant' (admittedly, I listened for a few minutes at your link and he didn't say that), rather it would seem logically that at least as a 'first step' the details are not - intuition usually comes before the details. Unless you have actual evidence that he really believes his ideas should be accepted purely on the basis of their conceptual novelty irrespective of their technical merit, I don't think it's fair to put words in his mouth. (Maybe your link was to the wrong spot?). I don't know what to make of it - it seems on one hand like a giant 'attention scheme' PR campaign, on another like a man down his own rabbit hole, but I sense on some level there's some good faith however lacking in self-awareness there may be on his own behalf. None of the commenters here as of the time I've written this seem to be willing to take it on at face value, granted, very few people could, but still, we seem to be posting ad-hominem instead of references to serious discussions of the work. If it's quackery then hopefully it should be obviously outed as that. If there's 'something' there, even some legit neat ideas, that should be recognized as well. Edit: I should add, I'm entirely sympathetic to anyone willing to take a serious stab at hard problems. There's no way this guy is actually devious, at worst he lacks self awareness, but there's at least Art in that. As long as people are not taking up research money with 'quackery' then it's great that people are storming the gates of the unknown.

stareatgoats 6y ago

I have no idea if Eric Weinstein is a misunderstood genius or not. Hopefully history will redeem him if he is. This caveat at the top of his research paper is not indicative of trustworthy, serious science though: > ∗The Author is not a physicist and is no longer an active academician (...) This work of entertainment is a draft of work in progress which is the property of the author and thus may not be built upon, renamed, or profited from without express permission of the author. ©Eric R Weinstein, 2021, All Rights Reserved."[0] Given such a glaring admission, I'm surprised at the pushback the parent comment is getting. Or is it worded like this for some obscure, legal reason? [0] https://geometricunity.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/Geometric_Unity-Draft-April-1st-2021.pdf https://geometricunity.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/Geometric...