Timeline for How do you find out the latest news in fields other than your own?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 15, 2022 at 13:16 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added a Wayback Machine link for the dead link
|
| Jun 3, 2010 at 18:41 | comment | added | Igor Belegradek | I regularly read Woit's blog exactly because it does great job of informing of recent developments in mathematics. I usually skip string theory part. | |
| Jun 3, 2010 at 18:10 | comment | added | Kim Morrison | I pronounce this comment thread officially closed. One more comment is allowed, which may only consist of a link to tea.mathoverflow.net announcing a thread to discuss the appropriateness of this discussion. Further, I'm going to use my moderator soapbox to say that I agree with Georges, that "You aren't qualified. I am." is a excellent representative of the ad hominem attacks some string theorists are so unfortunately prone to. Booyah. :-) | |
| Jun 3, 2010 at 7:47 | comment | added | jeremy | @alex. I can also see what you're saying about mathematicians working on things others are "skeptical" of... I have had this discussion more than once with mathematicians, so I should have learned my lesson by now... In physics we, well, honestly, don't have the same standards of rigor as in math! As a result, we're (typically) VERY generous (and overly polite) about what we think is potentially good work, and what's not. So for us to say someone's work is REALLY bad is the analog of a mathematician publishing papers with clearly false assertions and fallacious logical arguments. | |
| Jun 3, 2010 at 7:43 | comment | added | jeremy | @alex In physics, you're generally expected to, as a post doc, before applying to a position as a professor, have from 5-10 published papers, and to publish several papers a year if you're in a research-oriented position. To only have ~10 papers published ever is pretty much unheard of. Perhaps the situation is different in math? I assumed otherwise, given the several volume collection of Milnor's published works I have next to me, but perhaps that is not the case! | |
| Jun 3, 2010 at 7:30 | comment | added | alex | @jeremy Maybe, but attacking someone for not publishing enough papers or not racking up enough citations is low. Anyway, I would point out tht many mathematicians pursue research programs whose chances of success are viewed skeptically by others. | |
| Jun 3, 2010 at 7:27 | comment | added | Georges Elencwajg | @jeremy You write: "You aren't qualified. I am." Thanks for this crisp summing-up of your arguments. | |
| Jun 3, 2010 at 7:18 | comment | added | jeremy | @alex. I would cite technical details, but it's not appropriate to go into a lengthy technical discussion here of why Woit and Smolin's theories are not taken seriously. If you want to find out why, search the physics literature of the '70s-'80s regarding canonical quantization of general relativity and understand why they fail. Alternatively, Susskind, Weinberg, 't Hooft, and a few other field theorists have written lengthy criticisms of this over the years. I really am not exaggerating or being unfair when I say Woit and Smolin are not taken seriously by the entire community. | |
| Jun 3, 2010 at 7:12 | comment | added | alex | I really do not think attacks on people for having "published no more than a dozen papers in his [career]" and "only three or so in the past decade or two" and having "almost no citations" belong on this website. Actually, its somewhat astonishing that someone would cite such superficial criteria, but regardless of merit, this sort of thing does not belong here. | |
| Jun 3, 2010 at 7:06 | comment | added | jeremy | @Grorges. You aren't qualified. I am. So is the entire theoretical physics community. They have passed judgment. They don't cite Woit or Smolin's papers. They don't take their work seriously. They have been "settled according to the usual procedures of scientific investigations" 30 years ago. And it is appropriate to say this on a math website, when someone suggests (even indirectly) his blog, that it's no good, because, as you mentioned, not everyone here is qualified to see that it's total and complete nonsense. | |
| Jun 3, 2010 at 6:58 | comment | added | Georges Elencwajg | @jeremy(continuation) Lee Smolin, a high calibre physicist, makes similar points.Finally, I want to emphasize that I don't feel qualified to pass judgment on the value of string theory in physics (its value as fantastic source of inspiration for mathematicians is uncontroversial and acknowledged by Woit and all critics of string theory). But I think these issues should be settled according to the usual procedures of scientific investigations and coming to a mathematics site with appeals to boycott a blog is not one of them. | |
| Jun 3, 2010 at 6:57 | comment | added | jeremy | @Georges. Believe it or not, in physics, we do not criticize people based off of ad hominum arguments. Physicists criticize him because he isn't a good physicist. His "theories" break the laws of physics, and are directly falsified by experiment (since 20-30 years ago at least). The arguments in his book are fallacious, and do not represent what string theory actually says. This is why no one in the theoretical physics community--which is much larger than the string community!--cites any of his papers or takes him seriously. End of discussion. | |
| Jun 3, 2010 at 6:42 | comment | added | Georges Elencwajg | @jeremy Please don't tell Qiaochu what he has to read. Since Woit's "Not Even Wrong" criticizes the string theory community for their hype and their failure to come up with any refutable predictions, he is viciously attacked by that establishment. They resort, just like you, to ad hominem attacks. Having written a dozen papers is quite respectable and your judgment "the guy is not taken seriously in the theoretical physics community" is unsupported slander.Anyway good scientific practice would be to address his criticism, and not to count his papers.[To be continued in next comment box] | |
| Jun 3, 2010 at 5:32 | comment | added | jeremy | @Yuan, I have to comment--on that list is "Not Even Wrong." Please, don't try to read that blog... There's no math, the guy says he does physics but is hardly competent, and has published no more than a dozen papers in his carrier, only three or so in the past decade or two, most of which have almost no citations. The guy is not taken seriously by anyone in the theoretical physics community... I don't know how this guy keeps getting on every list of science blogs on the internet, but it drives me nuts. | |
| Jun 3, 2010 at 5:12 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | Another list of math blogs: onlinedegree.net/50-best-blogs-for-math-majors . Ignore the ranking. | |
| Jun 3, 2010 at 4:30 | history | edited | Opt | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Fixed link
|
| Jun 3, 2010 at 4:14 | history | edited | Opt | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 153 characters in body
|
| Jun 3, 2010 at 3:54 | history | answered | Opt | CC BY-SA 2.5 |