2 ms·
That's not what I said at all. Your second post is more in line with what I said. Lee Smolin was/is a string theorist too but at least he's objective and is no
by nickb 19y ago
That's not what I said at all. Your second post is more in line with what I said.
Lee Smolin was/is a string theorist too but at least he's objective and is not religious about ST like Motl and some others.
This is a good link: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.09/stringtheory.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.09/stringtheory.html
- hhm 19y agoI know about the case "not even wrong" and all that, and I agree. My point is: you can be a good string theorist, as well as you keep objective, as you say. I agree with that. Otherwise, we risk repeating the history: Schwartz was being believed to be nuts, until his team found some new interesting stuff. We don't know if that can happen again... Thanks a lot for the article, too.