Comments by "Kristopher Driver" (@paxdriver) on "The Institute of Art and Ideas" channel.

Eric Weinstein didn't have time to check out the only scientific critique of his own unified theory, but he had the time to do dozens of podcasts over the last 10 years complaining about other scientists not doing science and ignoring his work - which is totally scientific lol. "there is no reciprocal interest because this community simply thinks it is smarter than other communities...." I love listening to Eric, he's a smart guy no doubt. Entertaining fellow too, provocative thinker in many cases; but his hypocrisy is starting to really get under my skin. It's hard to respect such a whiner when he just won't stop with his fantasy ego trip about the "cabal of PhDs out to get him". This must be what it was like for friends of Nietzsche watching a brilliant mind descend into psychosis... It's terribly sad real physicists keep giving him a platform despite his fans clamouring for years to get Eric to restart his briefly sensational podcast.
110
@DarthScalar There was a clear critique with 4 main errors itemized in excrutiating detail. Eric didn't respond because that criticism was rejected by the pre-publication forum Archives because Eric's conjectures were too illigitimate to merit positng a response... which isn't their position to be doing anyway but that's the science community's error - yet Eric used that initial rejection of the criticism to summarily dismiss the critique without even looking at it or addressing, while going on podcast tours in the meantime complaining nobody was taking him seriously and dismissed his work prematurely as he did to his only critic. That's the motivation for my original comment, it's extremely hypocritical of him to keep complaining about the science community when he's perpetrating the same bias against the first and only team of peers to take his work seriously.
8
@rotfogel string theory isn't garbage, it's just another blind man feeling out the elephant which has yet to be accurately identified by any branch of science to date. It's like saying chemistry is garbage because it doesn't impart any insight into chirality or symmetry in particle physics. It's not a matter of good/bad, science is about prodding for truth from every angle we can think of and ruling everything out that can be ruled out. It's valid until it's ruled out or proven not to be useful.
7
@markcarey67 That's right Mark, if Eric was serious about GU he would've enlisted the help of Tim who did his PhD in math on the flaws and is the only person familiar enough with both the domain of science and Eric's work to move it forward collaboratively. It's a matter of professionalism and grandstanding imho holding Eric back, nothing to do with the admittedly cliquey community in this instance.
6
"May I interject?" "by all means, please do!... So long as it's helpful..." Lol the British-ness of it all if just fabulous. Great panel discussion.
5
@ChrisMissal I think he's capable of working with others but he'd rather not work lol It's much easier to cultivate a following than discover new science. Fame it seems was always his primary objective so that's where he's focused his efforts maybe (?)
4
The problem is in the fluid definition of what constitutes evidence to public media. It's become profane to suggest seemingly unmeasurable theories might be scientific.. Before things were discovered they were unknown but still true. Not thinking about something without bothering to disprove it - that's the entire problem.
2
@trevors6379 there is a subjectivity. Ants have different subjective views on morality, so do martyrs and psychopaths. Morality is subjective, that's what makes law difficult. What we have is a majority agreement on most of morality, but that is as prone to changing as our species evolves as the windspeed from one moment to the next.
2
I really wish you guys would fix the audio please and thanks
2
This guy seems to have a really hard time grasping Sabine's whole premise lol. Why would ask after 10mins of saying she objects to making up stories what she believes is the cause of, and purpose for, the universe? Is he even listening or is that supposed to be for the benefit of the audience?
2
"The benign capitalism of my youth..." as if the present weren't shaped by the past lol Emblematic of the social disconnect between stratas of society
2
Someone's read Michael Sandel and got inspired lol
2
Except for the reality of moral subjectivity... Without prescribed process anyone can just deem themselves more allowed or differently allowed than convention, which is another person's subjective abuse. None if that makes sense unless you condone mob thinking, so it does the opposite of what anarchists claim to be the desired outcome - an ideal which is literally less accurate, precise or viable than refining a just institution by any reasonable measurement.
1
@trevors6379 philosophically morality isn't math, or abstract proof so it is inherently subjective. There will be certain things we all mostly agree on are moral, but that's just as cultural as the ideal of women not having the right to work, vote or divorce. With humility and history as our guide, morality must necessarily be subjective. If you're more the experimental type rather than theoretical, solve the trolley problem for me in a YouTube comment and I'll gladly concede.
1
In order to acknowledge that innovation is often bottom up one must also adopt Marxist principles to empower opportunistic prodigies.. Nobody is yet ready to admit socialism has advantages despite our admiration of socialistic organizations as being the pinnacle of civilized societies. It's really perplexing to me how deeply a fear of communism runs in our culture, so much so we support capitalistic despots reflexively.
1
I can't take a man seriously doesn't see any proximity between Greek literature and Christian dogma... I mean, what kind of scholar thinks Roman culture was a time and place removed from Christian scripture? How ill informed can you possibly be? Lol
1
Space-time was un-testable too, until we got computers, and colliders and laser interferometers decades later. Same with atomic theory, chemistry, hell even machine learning was developed decades before we had multi-core CPUs never mind tensor core GPUs, FPGAs and TPUs. Point being: science is science until it is ruled out, not because of how we feel about it or until we get bored of trying to understand it. The biggest problem with populatizing theoretical physics as I see it (albeit the lesser evil) is conflating the every day world of "preference is MY truth and that's just as valid as objective observation" with science, which by definition aims to be impartial and strictly objective lest it be considered invalid unilaterally by default.
1
I wish Marvin Minsky were here for this
1
Since when is ruling things out not learning? Since when is 40 years a long time without a major scientific discovery in one particular segment on physical sciences and since when is CERN and ITER not considered progress? For that matter, if the earth has twice the population as when Sabine was born, and an order of magnitude greater number of physicists worldwide, and hobbyist physicist studying on YouTube, why is it surprising a lot of people are investigating / testing a lot of similar but yet still different and unknown theories? Nothing about these answers is indicative of a rigorous scientist's perspective, it is precisely the hubris and snobbery which stifles discovery...
1