tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post7952841086961470116..comments2014-08-31T03:30:52.347-04:00Comments on Backreaction: Fact or Fiction?Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://plus.google.com/111136225362929878171noreply@blogger.comBlogger95125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-84263564897518995842007-12-08T10:55:00.000-05:002007-12-08T10:55:00.000-05:00which paper? Look, this thread is about scientific...which paper? Look, this thread is about scientific journalism. I usually make an effort to explain in my papers exactly which assumptions go into my models, so I found your comment rather inappropriate. I don't see why I should bother with anonymously made insults or criticism on my work without any content.<BR/><BR/>B.Beehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-65549172784633109642007-12-08T09:14:00.000-05:002007-12-08T09:14:00.000-05:00HAHA,bee, what's the matter, you don't see ?I was ...HAHA,bee, what's the matter, you don't see ?<BR/><BR/>I was hoping you could explain your paper to me... you know- like you would your grandmother...<BR/>ah well, best, as allways,<BR/>A.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-62281071025292747072007-12-05T21:03:00.000-05:002007-12-05T21:03:00.000-05:00But I find this careless advertising very inapprop...<I>But I find this careless advertising very inappropriate on a science blog.</I><BR/><BR/>Dear Bee, me too. I wonder if they have control of the class of advertisements that appear on the blog or not. Anyway the world seems to have far too many ways to whittle away at one's integrity.Arunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03451666670728177970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-80234755381946543752007-12-05T12:57:00.000-05:002007-12-05T12:57:00.000-05:00Dear Arun:While we're at it, there is something el...Dear Arun:<BR/><BR/>While we're at it, there is something else that I find funny because it goes into the same direction as my concerns I mentioned above. Look at the advertisements CV or Lubos or other science blogs have in their side bar. I mean, let me just copy the first I came across there today<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.UniversalBelief.com/home.htm" REL="nofollow">www.UniversalBelief.com</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.thesecretmotivatorlive.tv/" REL="nofollow">www.thesecretmotivatorlive.tv</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.whatiknowforsure.org" REL="nofollow">www.whatiknowforsure.org</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infotheory.htm" REL="nofollow">www.cosmicfingerprints.com</A><BR/><BR/>The latter advertises to have proven intelligent design. <BR/><BR/>I can understand that one wants to have the bills for the website paid somehow. And writing the blog is an effort, so getting some money in with it is nice. But I find this careless advertising very inappropriate on a science blog. Best,<BR/><BR/>B.Beehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-52478131937368092942007-12-05T08:38:00.000-05:002007-12-05T08:38:00.000-05:00Dear Arun:Thanks for these interesting details... ...Dear Arun:<BR/>Thanks for these interesting details... Maybe you are right that the USA are already too detached from reality. On the other hand it is often the case that things have to go really wrong before they can get better. So in this regard it might be that it won't be Canada and Europe who first see the need to act. Best,<BR/><BR/>B.Beehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-2514294811709476252007-12-05T00:30:00.000-05:002007-12-05T00:30:00.000-05:00One way would be e.g. what I suggested earlier: a ...<I>One way would be e.g. what I suggested earlier: a right for information, which would simply speaking state that avoidable confusion is unlawful because it acts against the society's interests.</I><BR/><BR/>Dear Bee,<BR/><BR/>In the US, the Florida Appeals Court has already ruled that a news organization has no obligation to provide the truth.<BR/><BR/>(The case basically was that Murdoch's Fox News fired two TV persons when they refused to air a story they knew to be false. The reporters sued and court ruled in favor of Fox, that Fox had no obligation to be truthful. "Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.")<BR/><BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Regarding science information see the post "Toxic Texas" on my blog.<BR/><BR/>Maybe Europe and Canada have some chance. Not the US of A.Arunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03451666670728177970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-30826322602921295442007-12-05T00:22:00.000-05:002007-12-05T00:22:00.000-05:00Dear Bee:This is how bad things have gotten in the...Dear Bee:<BR/><BR/>This is how bad things have gotten in the US regarding political/government news:<BR/><BR/>Joe Klein, political columnist for the Time Magazine, the news magazine with the widest circulation in the US, wrote a column with some false and politically provocative statements about legislation that is in front of Congress that would put some curbs on the illegal wiretapping this Administration has been doing in the past six years.<BR/><BR/>A Senator who is member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, a member of the House Intelligence Committee and the Chairmen of the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, all vitally involved in the legislation, have written letters refuting the column but Time has refused to publish them.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/04/time/index.html" REL="nofollow">Here</A>.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/>-ArunArunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03451666670728177970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-17256962486036112312007-12-03T10:54:00.000-05:002007-12-03T10:54:00.000-05:00"One way would be e.g. what I suggested earlier: a..."One way would be e.g. what I suggested earlier: a right for information, which would simply speaking state that avoidable confusion is unlawful because it acts against the society's interests. A better way though would be to governmentally support science journalism."<BR/><BR/>Perhaps democracy in Canada is far more enlightened that it is in the US, but I shudder to think of how difficult it would be to craft legislation in the US that could possibly guarantee that the spirit, the intent of the "right" written into such legislation. The current administration's handcuffing of NOAA scientists who attempt to report critically on things like climate change or others at CDC who have been silenced on health issues that contradict the certainty held by the administration is a warning that legislative intent can all too easily be perverted.<BR/><BR/>In the realms of truth and information, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?", seems to be eternally relevant. Oh well, as long as the republic hold up, we can always work for a regime change...graydbahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06279112776182794928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-8337138700075627162007-12-02T19:27:00.000-05:002007-12-02T19:27:00.000-05:00Hi arivero:I am very much in favour of this. Best,...Hi arivero:<BR/><BR/>I am very much in favour of this. Best,<BR/><BR/>B.Beehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-49768596936029053442007-12-02T19:17:00.000-05:002007-12-02T19:17:00.000-05:00Perhaps we should become militant about upgrading ...Perhaps we should become militant about upgrading from monkeys to humans. No more vulgarization, but team working instead.ariverohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16181521111080562335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-19177227898324900232007-12-02T17:51:00.000-05:002007-12-02T17:51:00.000-05:00Dear Arun:To me this is just another example that ...Dear Arun:<BR/><BR/>To me this is just another example that illuminates how insufficient it is to trust in monetarism. It is in the interest of the public to obtain truthful and informative reporting. I think we both agree that the present way of funding it is a disaster for reasons that are completely obvious, and that are very well documented in the article you link to. This is a case where privatisation does not work for the benefits of the society because the outcome is not simply optimized by maximizing profit. It's as easy as this. There are various ways how to deal with that through politics. Since you are following this blog you probably know that I see democratically made decisions as a necessary balancing weight to pure monetarism. One way would be e.g. what I suggested earlier: a right for information, which would simply speaking state that avoidable confusion is unlawful because it acts against the society's interests. A better way though would be to governmentally support science journalism. There is a reason why research on universities is not funded by how well their researchers sell themselves. People that are 'in public service' are there because they are supposed to provide exactly that: a service for the public, independently from lobbies, financial pressure, and without being afraid to get fired because they don't 'feed the monkey'. Yes, that might not contribute to maximal entertainment, but then we should ask ourselves what do we want the our society to aim at? Fat monkeys?<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>B.Beehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-32920206658414901092007-12-01T17:04:00.000-05:002007-12-01T17:04:00.000-05:00Dear Bee,My question really is - how could science...Dear Bee,<BR/><BR/>My question really is - how could science journalism hope to be immune from "feeding the monkey"? <BR/><BR/>IMO, high quality reporting and writing has not enough of an appreciative audience to meet the demands for revenue growth at the big media conglomerates. It is a speciality market and a precarious niche at that. But there may be enough of a market for it to be quite rewarding.Arunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03451666670728177970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-49012713639501306132007-12-01T16:10:00.000-05:002007-12-01T16:10:00.000-05:00Dear Arun:Thanks, that is a very insightful piece ...Dear Arun:<BR/><BR/>Thanks, that is a very insightful piece of writing, though I think he overuses pictorial speech. Yes, if one extrapolates the general trend in our society ('feeding the monkey' 'for toothpaste and sneaker ads to ride on straight into the brains of the stupefied public', as he puts it), then it is very unsurprising this development reflects in science. <BR/><BR/>Why should science be immune to it? Because the scientific community is the last resort when it comes to reason contra publicity, and truth contra marketing prospects. If <I>we</I> are not able to realize how dangerous these developments are, and if we don't have the courage to request accurate reporting, possibly on the expenses of food for the monkey, then who is left?<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>B.Beehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-82891432752618136342007-12-01T14:50:00.000-05:002007-12-01T14:50:00.000-05:00Dear Bee,Somehow I think this following is connect...Dear Bee,<BR/><BR/>Somehow I think this following is connected to this commentary on the state of journalism - to make the connection, simply ask the question, why should science journalism be immune from this diagnosis?<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.nypress.com/17/26/news&columns/MattTaibbi.cfm" REL="nofollow">http://www.nypress.com/17/26/news&columns/MattTaibbi.cfm</A><BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/>-ArunArunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03451666670728177970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-64986393450555425952007-11-29T13:46:00.000-05:002007-11-29T13:46:00.000-05:00bee said:Sure, hiding the flaws of renormalization...bee said:<BR/>Sure, hiding the flaws of renormalization is the purpose of my being. <BR/><BR/>hehe, touche.<BR/>A.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-91396389937302337482007-11-28T20:52:00.000-05:002007-11-28T20:52:00.000-05:00I went over to http://help.blogger.com/?page=wishl...I went over to http://help.blogger.com/?page=wishlist, and wrote that it would be nice to have a "collapse comment to a stub" option for moderately unpleasant, not so nasty that they should be deleted, comments, so that a reader can choose to expand the message if they want to, but the bloggers displeasure is apparent without being as apparently vindictive as outright deletion. Unsurprising that someone, slashdot, has already done something similar, and probably better than my quick fix idea. Still, it's important in principle to have as many gradations of response to questionable behavior as possible.<BR/><BR/>ArXiv already has some of the fiercest administration on the planet. If you don't have an academic or otherwise acceptable e-mail address, they require you to be vouched for by someone who's already in the system, and once you're in they threaten retribution if you so much as sneeze. I imagine that if someone were to be unpleasant in a comment, ArXiv would remove privileges, permanently, close to instantly. Keeping out anyone who's not in, check. I think you're right, an arXiv commenting system would be a much more academic sort of place.Peter Morgannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-23542365705594176962007-11-28T18:49:00.000-05:002007-11-28T18:49:00.000-05:00hi rillian: thanks. I do appreciate corrections :-...hi rillian: thanks. I do appreciate corrections :-) - B.Beehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-39328347882686572182007-11-28T18:22:00.000-05:002007-11-28T18:22:00.000-05:00tyler: I would disagree that /. has proved no auto...tyler: I would disagree that /. has proved no automated moderation system could work. Some of the <A HREF="http://www.trustlet.org/wiki/Trust_Metrics_Evaluation_project" REL="nofollow">trust metrics</A> would be easy to apply to an arxiv forum, which already has a database of identities and citations. While they've not been tested on a large scale (unless you count Google's search ranking) smaller scale trials have been fairly successful and determining qualification to participate in a discussion. There's still middle ground to be explored between distributed and professional human moderation.<BR/><BR/>Bee: If you appreciate usage corrections, "temper with" should be "tamper with".rillianhttp://advogato.org/person/rillian/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-60870080801852024132007-11-28T14:41:00.000-05:002007-11-28T14:41:00.000-05:00D R,in contrast to another anonymous expert, I am ...D R,<BR/><BR/><BR/>in contrast to another anonymous expert, I am well aware that Cooperstock is a respected astrophysicist with training in GR. I was not aware that the comment was by you (though I could have noted your signature), nor that you are a relativist by training. I understand that you have encountered, say, strong opposition to your work from your fellow scientist, which puts your comment in perspective.<BR/><BR/>However, it's still completely wrong in my opinion to claim that C&T have "shown" anything (in the sense of mathematical proof, that is), and that all other relativists are incompetent and in error, in particular. Explaining rotational curves by some curious effect of GR would be a great thing, I think, but strong claims require strong arguments. And from a glimpse at the archive, it should be obvious to everyone who is interested that there is a controversy at least, and that there is the possibility that C&T may have made some error. <BR/><BR/>I don't mind at all if you are convinced that they are right and the criticisms unjustified - but stating as a fact what is not one, and, moreover, blaming the incompetence of all other scientists for the current situation, is just plain silly, in my opinion, and doesn't help your cause either. <BR/><BR/>I agree that I have not reacted equally harsh to all comments that have pissed me off lately because of their irresponsible tone or general uselessness, so it hit you, but this is just not a style of debate I would like to encourage in the comments.<BR/><BR/>Best, Stefanstefanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09495628046446378453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-88823763229570257332007-11-28T13:56:00.000-05:002007-11-28T13:56:00.000-05:00Hi Bee, I have.And I know what you meant by hobbyI...Hi Bee, I have.<BR/>And I know what you meant by hobby<BR/><BR/>I was simply adding to your reply to anonymous seven steps back, who asked nine steps back: <EM>"so, what is it that motivates a person with only amateur or hobby level knowledge of a subject to imagine that he knows better than trained professionals with years or decades of experience in the field?"</EM>QUASAR9http://www.blogger.com/profile/00593390598251093182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-30045090069230486682007-11-28T13:32:00.000-05:002007-11-28T13:32:00.000-05:00bee, the most advanced moderation system in place ...bee, the most advanced moderation system in place I know if is slashdot's - though they sadly still allow anonymous cowards - and though the moderation system is relatively sophisticated its success is questionable. I do find it useful, as I set my threshold for comment viewing at about "+2"...but then you have to trust the wisdom of the crowds. In the case of arxiv, you'd have to trust the moderators to never down-mod a post or author with whom they disagree on "politics of science" issues or the like.<BR/><BR/>Plus, moderating forums is a ridiculous amount of work. I should know, I was one of the first people ever to be professionally paid for such a job. It was a terrible, terrible job; though it was lucrative, and good experience.<BR/><BR/>I think /. has proven that no automated or crowd-based system can really work. So it's up to moderators, and they have to be trusted, and probably paid, and those two things may lead to conflicts of interest.<BR/><BR/>You are now up against the "hard problem" of web 2.0, which is really just a restatement of Sturgeon's Law as it relates to the wisdom of crowds: when you let them loose online, 90% of people are idiots.<BR/><BR/><I>Occasionally, I would like to have a second comment section 'experts only' to get rid of the background noise.</I><BR/><BR/>As an official part of the background noise, I think this is a good idea - and it could be done in a sophisticated commenting system via tagging. You, the moderator, could tag a given post (or user) as expert; such posts would be highlighted, and there could be a toggle to collapse all non-expert posts, leaving behind a "condensed" expert-only version of the thread.tylernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-47205284129724814202007-11-28T10:57:00.000-05:002007-11-28T10:57:00.000-05:00Hi Quasar: You too, please read my above reply to ...Hi Quasar: <BR/><BR/>You too, please read my <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985" REL="nofollow">above reply to Javier</A> clarifying what I mean with hobby. Had I known that the word would broadly be interpreted to have a different meaning than the one I attach to it, I would have used a different formulation. So, I am sorry about that confusion. Best,<BR/><BR/>B.Beehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-35842991552984091322007-11-28T10:51:00.000-05:002007-11-28T10:51:00.000-05:00Hi Peter:The point is to ask who should control th...Hi Peter:<BR/><BR/>The point is to ask who should control the commenting system? I don't think it should be a) one single person and b) neither the person who raises the initial criticism, nor the person writing the paper. Also, it would only be persons registered at the arxiv who could comment, and they would do so with their real name, something that hardly happens in the blogosphere and is (esp if you're not running your own software) hard to achieve. Yes, maybe if the arxiv had such a software bloggers could use it. Occasionally, I would like to have a second comment section 'experts only' to get rid of the background noise. It's not that I don't want non-experts comments at all (in fact, I find them often as interesting as entertaining), but it's very confusing to follow arguments in such a mixed up comment section. Best, <BR/><BR/>B.Beehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-27546121227789485112007-11-28T10:41:00.000-05:002007-11-28T10:41:00.000-05:00Bee wrote: “The reasons why I would prefer [a comm...Bee wrote: “The reasons why I would prefer [a commenting system on ArXiv] over blogs are as mentioned: blog posts can be edited later which can potentially obscure discussions, blogs are usually run by one person who can delete and/or modify comments (depending on the software used), blogs are often subject to a lot of uninformed background noise.”<BR/><BR/>A commenting system on ArXiv would be no different from the same commenting system on a blog. It’s the commenting that’s the problem, not the blog. ArXiv would choose whatever commenting system they liked best, and implement it on ArXiv. Otherwise, they might design their own commenting system, which blogs might find it useful to adopt -- if ArXiv does it well. Whatever they do, the ArXiv staff has to control the commenting systems at some level, and, given the large number of papers and the small number of staff, the system had better be highly automatic. Really Simple Comment Management might even be the next Killer App. It seems that complaints about comment management on this or some other blog are common across the blogosphere.Peter Morgannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-18928171360634629462007-11-28T09:10:00.000-05:002007-11-28T09:10:00.000-05:00"so, what is it that motivates a person with only ...<EM>"so, what is it that motivates a person with only amateur or hobby level knowledge of a subject to imagine that he knows better than trained professionals with years or decades of experience in the field?"</EM><BR/><BR/>Technically speaking Einstein was an amateur bobbyist to start with. His day job was the patents office?<BR/><BR/>But he read material, and clearly had some 'valid' insights into the structure of things.<BR/><BR/>Too much knowledge of a specialised subject has always had the risk of blinding or blinkering people to a 'higher truth' - after all even in transplant surgery or brain surgery - sometimes it takes a 'wild card' or 'young punk/turk' to come up and suggest doing things in a different way, and the old masters or older surgeons with decades more experience are sometimes slow to respond, or to accept changes.<BR/><BR/>Even Newton (a scholar and some time hobbyist) had difficulties with The Royal Society. By grinding his own mirrors, using Newton's rings to judge the quality of the optics for his telescopes, he was able to produce a superior instrument to the refracting telescope, due primarily to the wider diameter of the mirror. In 1671 the Royal Society asked for a demonstration of his reflecting telescope. Their interest encouraged him to publish his notes On Colour, which he later expanded into his Opticks. <BR/><BR/>When Robert Hooke criticised some of Newton's ideas, Newton was so offended that he withdrew from public debate. The two men remained enemies until Hooke's death.<BR/><BR/>Newton argued that light is composed of particles or corpuscles and were refracted by accelerating toward the denser medium, but he had to associate them with waves to explain the diffraction of light (Opticks Bk. II, Props. XII-L). Later physicists instead favoured a purely wavelike explanation of light to account for diffraction. <BR/><BR/>And as we know, today's quantum mechanics, photons and the idea of wave-particle duality bear only a minor resemblance to Newton's understanding of light.<BR/><BR/>However to answer your question, a good Master would see the merits of any new insights from wherever (whether from a post grad, post doc, an amateur or a hobbyist) - without letting personal 'ego' affect the meeting as in the case of Newton & Hooke.<BR/><BR/><B>Most people who have been in a field for decades will have read or thought of most of the arguments a 'new comer' or 'amateur' can or may make. And supposing they don't have an axe to grind or a theory they favour above another, should be able to see any 'argument' in its own light</B>QUASAR9http://www.blogger.com/profile/00593390598251093182noreply@blogger.com
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/feeds/7952841086961470116/comments/default
backreaction.blogspot.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2014-35
59411
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:TAPDLAVZKO7F2V3QOK43OBBEI4R3AEYP
<urn:uuid:5bd013c6-7276-4cff-8840-618c4f03e29a>
2014-08-31T08:16:38Z
74.125.228.202
sha1:UMCU4X6BMOA6RGUCG66BUIIX7ASAWORG
<urn:uuid:01ad2f75-4cfe-43a5-8535-8d95fa6d3f39>
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/feeds/7952841086961470116/comments/default
length
response
<urn:uuid:9ebb0483-515b-4e25-8bad-fac302787263>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-180-136-8.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2014-35
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for August 2014
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf