Re:Problems with Eric Weinstein's “Geometric Unity”
by ineedasername on Saturday March 06, 2021 @06:08PM
(#26371374)
It's not ivory tower. Research needs to be structured in some form or fashion: I don't care if it's APA style or whatever, but a YouTube lecture video certainly doesn't have any reasonable degree of structure for something proposed as a groundbreaking ToE when the lecturer hasn't also presented more concrete documentation somewhere else.
If the author of this post had some compelling research from Weinstein that Weinstein had tossed up on his blog and was complaining about it not being peer-reviewed, I'd say sure-- there's a bit of ivory-tower-ism. But it seems a pretty valid complaint against a scientist when the primary material for their grand theory is a YouTube video. In fact after 8 years without much more than that, I'm surprised anyone paid enough attention to bother addressing the theory at all.
Pretty much anyone in any job can't propose a single thing without giving specific reasons justifying it. If Weinstein isn't willing to pass that bar, it's not some kind of insider's-club to dismiss what he's done as insufficient.
If the author of this post had some compelling research from Weinstein that Weinstein had tossed up on his blog and was complaining about it not being peer-reviewed, I'd say sure-- there's a bit of ivory-tower-ism. But it seems a pretty valid complaint against a scientist when the primary material for their grand theory is a YouTube video. In fact after 8 years without much more than that, I'm surprised anyone paid enough attention to bother addressing the theory at all.
Pretty much anyone in any job can't propose a single thing without giving specific reasons justifying it. If Weinstein isn't willing to pass that bar, it's not some kind of insider's-club to dismiss what he's done as insufficient.