I think Aaronson's dismissive attitude is unbecoming and disrespectful amongst colleagues.
'Unrelated Update: To everyone who keeps asking me about the “new” P≠NP proof: I’d again bet $200,000 that the paper won’t stand, except that the last time I tried that, it didn’t achieve its purpose, which was to get people to stop asking me about it. So: please stop asking, and if the thing hasn’t been refuted by the end of the week, you can come back and tell me I was a closed-minded fool.'
Quick-copy pasting a Facebook comment as reason not to want to deal with it, betting a large sum of money almost tauntingly is not good scholarship.
A serious researcher made a serious effort to solve a problem. Say you have not verified it and don't want to comment.
It almost seems like he does not want P/NP to be proven because he has made a reputation by becoming an authority on dismissing attempts.
Most people who publish proofs don't seem to make any attempt to get their work reviewed before putting it out onto the open internet. That's of course their choice, but then you have to expect people to tell you where you have wrong, bluntly. It's a huge waste of everyone's time who then reads the proof.
I think he could respond to it better (once you're a public-enough figure online, a good skill to learn is knowing when to step away from the keyboard instead of saying something grumpy you'll probably later regret), but I see where he's coming from.
Let's take a moment to change perspective:
Imagine you worked for years on something and finally uploaded it on ArXiv, waiting for the community to weigh in. The following characters appear:
1. Someone known in the field does not bother reading it but says you are probably wrong, bets money on you being wrong and says he does not want to be bothered with it. How would you feel?
2. Someone else known in the community starts collating information/comments to help verify the proof or find instructive mistakes.
3. Another mathematician also believes Blum is wrong just because it is statistically likely, and does not want to spend time on something that will most likely lead nowhere. She keeps this opinion to herself and simply does not engage with the material. If approached, she declines to comment because she says he did not have time to check the proof.
Aaronson went for option 1 and in my highly personal opinion, it's the worst of the ones listed. It's standing at the sidelines being snarky. Just because he may as well be right does not make this behaviour any better.
It is the equivalent of laughing in an undergrad lecture when someone asks a naive question.
I just want the problem with his behavior to be accurately diagnosed, because I think (again, I could be wrong) the solution is "better manage your temper with your non-academia fans" and not "rethink your relationship with other academics".
Sounds like most academic paper reviews!
I have no personal familiarity with this specific instance, but your assessment is likely correct. "Putting out the fire with gasoline" is pretty common on the internet. I have seen celebrities on Twitter reply to something they did not like, only to be surprised and grumpy that their attempts to shut it down backfired and just resulted in more of the thing they did not want, plus additional collateral damage of various sorts.
>...except that the last time I tried that, it didn’t achieve its purpose, which was to get people to stop asking me about it. So: please stop asking... [emphasis mine]
If Aaronson had directed his comments at the actual researcher or at anyone affiliated with them, I'd agree with you, but it's clear that he's directing them at generally unsophisticated social media users who are too email-happy.
I would invite you to read his earlier blog post on the same proof and then think about why he said what he did.
However, among mainstream media and the public, considering the previous false claims to a proof, and given the extreme attention surrounding the question being studied, Scott's response demonstrates what a healthy level of skepticism looks like.
That is exactly how science works. You have to prove something before it's made a fact. Science operates completely on the notion that incorrect statements should be gotten rid of.
> I’d again bet $200,000 that the paper won’t stand [...] and if the thing hasn’t been refuted by the end of the week, you can come back and tell me I was a closed-minded fool.
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3389
On the other hand, his original post contained an short explanation (one or two sentences) what he believed to be a flaw in the paper, which he has removed since then.