5 ms·

The blog post itself quotes Edward Witten, a Fields medal winner, as saying "String theory is the only idea about quantum gravity with any substance". It quotes

The blog post itself quotes Edward Witten, a Fields medal winner, as saying "String theory is the only idea about quantum gravity with any substance". It quotes David Gross, Nobel prize winner, as saying "Loop quantum gravity is total BS". Then it seems to shrug and say, well, too bad they're all so wrong. What am I missing? What are the priors for trusting the author of this blog more than the seemingly universal voice of these authorities?

ganzuul 5y ago
Reason over authority should be prior enough, shouldn't it? If the author makes a compelling argument then according to the authority of your own faculty of reason this should be afforded as much trust as you put into anything.
- JadeNB 5y ago
  > Reason over authority should be prior enough, shouldn't it? If the author makes a compelling argument then according to the authority of your own faculty of reason this should be afforded as much trust as you put into anything. Certainly one shouldn't believe everything an expert says uncritically, and anyone is entitled to investigate even the most authoritative pronouncement, but I think believing that pure reason, without the benefit of specialist training, is the equal if not the better of expertise and experience can lead one all too quickly down the wrong path. (For example, pure reason definitely rebels at first against quantum mechanics--at least, mine does, and I'm a mathematician!)
  - ganzuul 5y ago
    I would say that people are gifted with different forms of reasoning and that we have no choice but to work with what we have, beneficiaries of specializing training or not. To deem some reasoning more pure than another would imply they have an order, but as a mathematician you know what Gödel has to say about that. Of course if the authority has critical information that can not be communicated then no compelling argument can be made and the age of enlightenment was but an illusion.
mjreacher 5y ago
The author, Peter Woit, is a long term critic of string theory. His wikipedia page should give you an overview of his background. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Woit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Woit
hannob 5y ago
I've only watched this debate from a lay person's view (no physics background and thus I have no chance of understanding what these theories are about), but from what I understand: There's a number of physicians who are worried about the way modern physics operates and particularly about string theory. Peter Woidt is an influencial voice in this debate and has written a book about it, but he's far from alone. The criticism is that string theory has failed in a lot of the things it was supposed to solve, that the LHC hasn't supported the idea of supersymmetry particles, which was a key concept within string theory and was expected by its proponents. Also a key criticism seems to be that there's no real reason to believe string theory is true and other attempts are false, but there seems to be a strong opinion by many string theorists that alternatives should not be explored. Admittedly I have mostly read one side of this debate.
auntienomen 5y ago
There's not any particular reason to trust Woit more than Gross and Witten. But you don't really have to worry about the distinction here. Woit is not advocating for any of the alternative approaches to quantum gravity. He's aware that they are basically crap. His complaint is that he thinks the string theorists are claiming to have solved the problem.

ganzuul 5y ago

Reason over authority should be prior enough, shouldn't it? If the author makes a compelling argument then according to the authority of your own faculty of reason this should be afforded as much trust as you put into anything.

JadeNB 5y ago
> Reason over authority should be prior enough, shouldn't it? If the author makes a compelling argument then according to the authority of your own faculty of reason this should be afforded as much trust as you put into anything. Certainly one shouldn't believe everything an expert says uncritically, and anyone is entitled to investigate even the most authoritative pronouncement, but I think believing that pure reason, without the benefit of specialist training, is the equal if not the better of expertise and experience can lead one all too quickly down the wrong path. (For example, pure reason definitely rebels at first against quantum mechanics--at least, mine does, and I'm a mathematician!)
- ganzuul 5y ago
  I would say that people are gifted with different forms of reasoning and that we have no choice but to work with what we have, beneficiaries of specializing training or not. To deem some reasoning more pure than another would imply they have an order, but as a mathematician you know what Gödel has to say about that. Of course if the authority has critical information that can not be communicated then no compelling argument can be made and the age of enlightenment was but an illusion.

mjreacher 5y ago

The author, Peter Woit, is a long term critic of string theory. His wikipedia page should give you an overview of his background. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Woit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Woit

hannob 5y ago

I've only watched this debate from a lay person's view (no physics background and thus I have no chance of understanding what these theories are about), but from what I understand: There's a number of physicians who are worried about the way modern physics operates and particularly about string theory. Peter Woidt is an influencial voice in this debate and has written a book about it, but he's far from alone. The criticism is that string theory has failed in a lot of the things it was supposed to solve, that the LHC hasn't supported the idea of supersymmetry particles, which was a key concept within string theory and was expected by its proponents. Also a key criticism seems to be that there's no real reason to believe string theory is true and other attempts are false, but there seems to be a strong opinion by many string theorists that alternatives should not be explored. Admittedly I have mostly read one side of this debate.

auntienomen 5y ago

There's not any particular reason to trust Woit more than Gross and Witten. But you don't really have to worry about the distinction here. Woit is not advocating for any of the alternative approaches to quantum gravity. He's aware that they are basically crap. His complaint is that he thinks the string theorists are claiming to have solved the problem.