4 ms·

>She is (was) a physics researcher Why would you say "was" - she's still a fellow at FIAS and lists herself as a researcher on her own website. Conversely, her

>She is (was) a physics researcher Why would you say "was" - she's still a fellow at FIAS and lists herself as a researcher on her own website. Conversely, her only publication in the last decade with more than 100 citations was her popular science book aimed at non-physicists and most of the things before that were borderline hack stuff, basically going back to Milgrom's theory with very little content that would justify moving this research from fringe to mainstream [1]. She definitely hasn't established herself as an authority on foundations of quantum mechanics or string theory, which she has taken a liking to discredit. So the commenter above was not wrong. [1] https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=NaQZcyYAAAAJ&hl=en https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=NaQZcyYAAAAJ&hl=en

fidgewidge 4y ago
How would one go about establishing themselves as an academic authority on a topic or field which one believed was based on nothing real?
- sigmoid10 4y ago
  How would you know if something is "based on nothing real" if you haven't actively worked in and contributed to said field? I for example know very little about virology or immunology and I have never published anything in those fields. Would you listen to me discrediting covid researchers or mRNA-vaccines if I say I think they are based on nothing real?
  - munch117 4y ago
    You are putting up a ridiculously high bar for expressing an opinion, where not even a research fellow in theoretical physics can pass. If you were a research fellow in virology or immunology, and you had read and understood the relevant papers, then I would listen to you, yes. That doesn't mean I would take what you said as the final word.
    - sigmoid10 4y ago
      >you had read and understood the relevant papers How would you know that if I hadn't published papers on the relevant topics and only published in adjacent, non-mainstream topics? And yes, the bar for string theory is high. Not every research fellow in theoretical physics would be qualified to comment here - quite the opposite actually. In the same way any honest theoretical plasma physicist will refuse to comment on quantum computing papers. Inside academia it is well known that you often can't even expect people to create qualified comments across neighbouring offices inside departments. Regardless, there are quite a few qualified people in this area. If someone with caliber like Susskind, Gross, 't Hooft, Witten or from the respected younger generation came out and said it's all a hoax, you can bet everyone would listen. And they have come out with specific critique, but you'll find it very different from the likes of Hossenfelder and it is usually not discussed in popsci literature. Noone in the field cares about people who haven't even shown they understand it, let alone contributed to it.
      - munch117 4y ago
        No one has said that anything is a hoax. Please tone it down. > How would you know that if I hadn't published papers on the relevant topics No, that not the question. You don't get to assume that people are incompetent until they've presented incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. You're the one making ad hominem arguments, the burden of proof is on you.
        bandyaboot 4y ago
        > You don't get to assume that people are incompetent until they've presented incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Leaving aside the setting of ridiculously high bars for the moment, that level of evidence would be different depending on who is observing. A car mechanic is going to be able to spot clear evidence of incompetence in another car mechanic long before it’s apparent to a layperson observer.
        sigmoid10 4y ago
        >No one has said that anything is a hoax What? Have you even read OP's article? A direct quote from the article has her saying this physics research is "religion masquerading as science under the guise of mathematics." If that's not insinuating a hoax I then don't know what is.
credit_guy 4y ago
The kid who shouted “the emperor is naked” was not exactly an expert in clothing matters.
- sigmoid10 4y ago
  The emperor wasn't doing particle physics - a field which takes years to even begin to understand and decades to become an accepted researcher. Nothing that an outsider would even be able to comment on, let alone point out flaws.
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    Nope. If you do physics and claim a theory does not need to be testable, you are just naked.

fidgewidge 4y ago

How would one go about establishing themselves as an academic authority on a topic or field which one believed was based on nothing real?

sigmoid10 4y ago
How would you know if something is "based on nothing real" if you haven't actively worked in and contributed to said field? I for example know very little about virology or immunology and I have never published anything in those fields. Would you listen to me discrediting covid researchers or mRNA-vaccines if I say I think they are based on nothing real?
- munch117 4y ago
  You are putting up a ridiculously high bar for expressing an opinion, where not even a research fellow in theoretical physics can pass. If you were a research fellow in virology or immunology, and you had read and understood the relevant papers, then I would listen to you, yes. That doesn't mean I would take what you said as the final word.
  - sigmoid10 4y ago
    >you had read and understood the relevant papers How would you know that if I hadn't published papers on the relevant topics and only published in adjacent, non-mainstream topics? And yes, the bar for string theory is high. Not every research fellow in theoretical physics would be qualified to comment here - quite the opposite actually. In the same way any honest theoretical plasma physicist will refuse to comment on quantum computing papers. Inside academia it is well known that you often can't even expect people to create qualified comments across neighbouring offices inside departments. Regardless, there are quite a few qualified people in this area. If someone with caliber like Susskind, Gross, 't Hooft, Witten or from the respected younger generation came out and said it's all a hoax, you can bet everyone would listen. And they have come out with specific critique, but you'll find it very different from the likes of Hossenfelder and it is usually not discussed in popsci literature. Noone in the field cares about people who haven't even shown they understand it, let alone contributed to it.
    - munch117 4y ago
      No one has said that anything is a hoax. Please tone it down. > How would you know that if I hadn't published papers on the relevant topics No, that not the question. You don't get to assume that people are incompetent until they've presented incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. You're the one making ad hominem arguments, the burden of proof is on you.
      - bandyaboot 4y ago
        > You don't get to assume that people are incompetent until they've presented incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Leaving aside the setting of ridiculously high bars for the moment, that level of evidence would be different depending on who is observing. A car mechanic is going to be able to spot clear evidence of incompetence in another car mechanic long before it’s apparent to a layperson observer.
      - sigmoid10 4y ago
        >No one has said that anything is a hoax What? Have you even read OP's article? A direct quote from the article has her saying this physics research is "religion masquerading as science under the guise of mathematics." If that's not insinuating a hoax I then don't know what is.

credit_guy 4y ago

The kid who shouted “the emperor is naked” was not exactly an expert in clothing matters.

sigmoid10 4y ago
The emperor wasn't doing particle physics - a field which takes years to even begin to understand and decades to become an accepted researcher. Nothing that an outsider would even be able to comment on, let alone point out flaws.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  Nope. If you do physics and claim a theory does not need to be testable, you are just naked.