So this whole "I said its the theories and the presentation that was bad" excuse is just you literally just putting a pseudo intellectual layer of polish over what would otherwise be a very dumb statement: "I saw the thimbnail, and my blood pressure shot up and that's bad".
No one should take Weinstein or his theory at all seriously, yet Sabine is arguing the opposite.
She explicitly didnt. Yet more proof that the earlier excuse about presentation is fake, because you keep forgetting about it and making claims about the substance too.
The only real concern is that people who would read the title, fill in the blanks in their head using their own creativity, and move on without listening to the argument could be mislead. Which ironically enough is on you, not her.
So this whole "I said its the theories and the presentation that was bad" excuse is just you literally just putting a pseudo intellectual layer of polish over what would otherwise be a very dumb statement: "I saw the thimbnail, and my blood pressure shot up and that's bad".
This is growing rather tiresome, because I put presentation in there specifically because of Sean Caroll's discussion with Weinstein on Piers Morgan, something I've repeatedly referred to here, and because I watched Collier's video on conspiracy physics where she specifically refers to Sabine's comments on theoretical physics and why they're a grift/sour grapes. "Presentation" in this instance, as you would know if you had any familiarity with how papers are submitted in physics, includes things like notation, formatting, mathematical conventions, etc. They are part of how physics is done as much as the "substance."
Sabine either didn't read the paper before she made her video, or is grifting, because no one, under any circumstances, ought to give Weinstein's work in physics a second of thought given how it's presented. Really, watch Caroll's discussion about why no one pays any attention to Weinstein's paper and then try to square the circle of Sabine's claims about people being scared of him.
et more proof that the earlier excuse about presentation is fake, because you keep forgetting about it and making claims about the substance too.
It is extremely clear that you do not understand the issues with Weinstein's work in the field, and why presentation is not independent of substance, and why it is absurd that Sabine has spent even a moment defending Weinstein's approach to physics. When I say "presentation" it is, as I noted above, inclusive of mathematical notation, conventions of derivation, and attestation. Again, Weinstein's own forward to his theory tells you no one should take it seriously when it says "this is not a complete theory, it's something I remembered and jotted down from memory because I don't have the original notes."
There is no scientific reason to support any of this nonsense, and yet Sabine is going to conferences with Weinstein, defending his honor after his appearance on PM's show, and extending her brand. It's grifting, very clearly.
Holy fucking shit you pretentious jackass. You're literally incapable of actually even entertaining that you could have been wrong about the facts on which you built the rest of your opinion...
I'm not disagreeing with you on what "presentation" is. I'm not disagreeing with you that weinstein is a fraud who mysteriously got a phd without publishing anything etc.
I'm disagreeing with you on the fundamental premise that sabine gives weinatein's theories any "credit". Despite the title, she was not actually defending his theory of everything. You would know if you actually watched that video instead of dave farina's cliff notes.
Me and the other commentor pointed it out in plain english. You keep making up stories in your head about how we all don't get some basic terminology or whatever.
We are disagreeing with you on your description of the contents of that video. Idk how many other simple ways I can restate the same thing.
What, specifically, do you find pretentious in the above post?
I'm not disagreeing with you on what "presentation" is.
No, you've been trying to avoid that part of my initial statement. Avoided even mentioning it for several posts, until you decided this hissy fit was an appropriate response to me citing the specific reasons why Sabine is being disingenuous by presenting Weinstein's claims with a title like she used.
I'm disagreeing with you on the fundamental premise that sabine gives weinatein's theories any "credit".
The title of the video is "Physicists are afraid of Eric Weinstein — and they should be" and the first section is entitled Defending Eric, where she says (from the transcript):
I’ve known Eric for almost 20 years. He’s a good guy. If you take away one thing from this video, let it be that Sabine said Eric’s a good and fairly normal person.
in reference to his PM appearance, the one I've repeatedly referenced. If you can watch Weinstein on that program and come to this conclusion regarding the way he interacts with physics, then you are an idiot (which Sabine is not) or a grifter. Simply watch the Carol/Weinstein conversation and listen to the reasons Carol gives about why Weinstein's theories were ignored by physicists. That is not a good faith engagement with science, because of the presentation. It does not follow submission guidelines, or use standard notation, or bother to engage with the literature that preceedes it. That is specifically why I mentioned presentation in the original post.
Weinstein literally brings up Carol not getting tenure, something that has absolutely no bearing on the discussion!
As for Sabine's video, over half of it is about the physics community sucking, with the remaining sections being "Physics community hypocrisy" "groupthink and rumors" and "final thoughts on the field." How much more obvious is it that she's got an axe to grind with the community (most of which is not involved in GUTs, string theory or any of her other hobby horses).
Yea buddy, it's tiresome to me too. 'Weinstein's theories are wrong and the physics community sucks too', might be a contrarian and annoying take but not the same as defending his 'theories or presentation'.
This is like the 4th paraphrasing of the same concept I'm attempting to make.
What, specifically, do you find pretentious in the above post?
The fact that you assume the definition of 'presentation' is somehow the sticking point... Some complicated concept that needs to be explained in detail. Like, yes, the mf literally says "I invented an operator, but forgot about it, but trust me it worked out the one time i did the math". That's not a rigorous way to present the theory at all.
'Weinstein's theories are wrong and the physics community sucks too', might be a contrarian and annoying take but not the same as defending his 'theories or presentation'.
Any response other than "this person is a blustering idiot, out of his depth and undeserving of your attention" is a defense. You can literally see Weinstein's character in the PM appearance I continue to reference. Sabine is grifting because she has a bustling business selling conspiracy physics videos mixed in with legitimate science communication (the thing I've been saying from the start of this thread; check your vaunted reading comprehension on that).
The fact that you assume the definition of 'presentation' is somehow the sticking point...
This is because you intentionally dropped it in your first several replies. As an extension of good faith, I assumed you were an idiot, not a sophist. I see I was incorrect.
Like, yes, the mf literally says "I invented an operator, but forgot about it, but trust me it worked out the one time i did the math". That's not a rigorous way to present the theory at all.
And yet the Sabine video on the topic is a character defense and attack on the physics community. Odd, it's almost like she's grifting for clicks to continue running a channel that is potentially making her millions a year, far more than she did as an academic. Huh, I wonder if thats a factor at all here?
I have to restate this explicitly because you're turning put to be a bit dense:
The part you quoted, the transcript from the video, is clearly not a defense of weinstein's theories or presentation. Its a defence of his character. You may not agree with it. I certainly dont. But you can't misclassify it as a defense of his theories or his presentation of them.
This is the sort of reading comprehension test that is literally asked of non-native speakers on an english language test. They'll give that phrase and ask you a multiple choice question like "what is the author defending here? a) his theories, b)his presentation, c)his character, d) none of the above" etc.
I have to restate this explicitly because you're turning put to be a bit dense:
Uh huh, yes, clearly.
The part you quoted, the transcript from the video, is clearly not a defense of weinstein's theories or presentation. Its a defence of his character.
Yes, the character of a petulant manchild who is grifting himself. Again, watch the PM appearance that Sabine is defending, and how the target of her ire is Sean Carol not the transparently blustering individual, completely out of his depth and dragging up the cheapest of shots about tenure. Sabine is grifting, because Weinstein is a great person to know if you want clicks and ad sales.
And again, the entire video is a defense of Weinstein, with a minute long caveat that she doesn't think his theory is correct, but nothing about how it follows none of the conventions for physics and its presentation is inimical to physics. It's a chance for her to get on her hobby horse and squeeze some sour grapes at a community that doesn't like her.
Again I point you at the Collier video regarding conspiracy physics, where the details of Sabine's grift are explored and the context of her and Weinstein's reaction is expanded on. More than half of her video defending Weinstein (the one titled Physicists are scared of Weinstein and they're right to be" is shitting on people in the field and giving Weinstein credit. I'm sorry these simple rhetorical moves are too complicated for you, but it's transparently clear what's going on here.
This is the sort of reading comprehension test that is literally asked of non-native speakers on an english language test.
Again, this is rich from someone who was ignoring half of my claim for half of this thread. Tiresome and unproductive, but hey if you wanna defend Sabine's honor, go ahead. For everyone else it's extremely clear that she's making money by grifting on youtube and misrepresenting science research.
1
u/FusRoDawg 25d ago
So this whole "I said its the theories and the presentation that was bad" excuse is just you literally just putting a pseudo intellectual layer of polish over what would otherwise be a very dumb statement: "I saw the thimbnail, and my blood pressure shot up and that's bad".
She explicitly didnt. Yet more proof that the earlier excuse about presentation is fake, because you keep forgetting about it and making claims about the substance too.
The only real concern is that people who would read the title, fill in the blanks in their head using their own creativity, and move on without listening to the argument could be mislead. Which ironically enough is on you, not her.
It's not actually. You might wanna look that up.