10 ms·
Yes, and the right arena for that are carefully formulated papers with formulas, instead of youtube videos and blog posts with large claims and no substance. Ha
by davrosthedalek 4y ago
Yes, and the right arena for that are carefully formulated papers with formulas, instead of youtube videos and blog posts with large claims and no substance. Have a look at arxiv, and you will find that the community engages with her arguments there, at least for the stuff she actually wrote a paper about. (In recent times, I'm not so sure about her not being in that category, btw.)
- bawolff 4y agoShe's making a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. Is arxiv really the right arena for that? What formulas would even be relavent? At least from what i read - she's basically saying that there is such a derth of new data and plausible ways to get it in the near/medium term, that theoretical particle physicists have basically been creating abstract theories which while may or may not be true, are increasingly detached from the emperical world. To the point where they are no longer predictive theories and there are so many free parameters that you can post-hoc fit it to any data you might collect. Hence the real world applicability is akin to speculating how many angels could fit on a pin head. Now this may or may not be true. I don't have the background to know. But this is not a science argument, it is a philosophical argument. Fundamentally its asking are theoretical particle physicists engaging in science or are they engaging in some combination of math and metaphysics. Is arxiv really the place to have such philosophical debates?
- davrosthedalek 4y agoYou are right, maybe, for this argument, but that's not the only thing she talks about. Other topics clearly should go in a paper.