This was an OK DV, but it ran much longer than necessary at least for the relatively sparse amount of territory it actually covered. It seemed to me to stagnate a bit in a low-energy rehashing of essentially the same points. Maybe next time a cup of coffee right before recording could help? Thanks to both. EW

Very good diavlog (though I'd agree very slightly with EW's criticism about the pacing/length/sparseness). It was a bit of a pity that both diavloggers are tired of about the worth (or lack thereof) of string theory, because I would have liked to hear a bit more on that. No biggie; I'm sure I can read their blogs for more on this, and they did touch on some of the important points. I thought Peter and Bee raised a number of good points about the contributions, both positive and negative, of the blogosphere to their fields, and indeed, to any advanced academic topic. Bee is right to raise, once again, the worry about the echo chamber problem -- to this I would like to say that the flip side of "echo chamber: bad" is that it can be useful for like-minded people to find a place to talk things over. Not only can ideas be refined without having to deal with carping from the completely opposed, there is also the chance that the shared viewpoint will get more attention from the press, or general public, or those holding the funding purse strings, than it might have otherwise. I'll

Quoting Eastwest: Maybe next time a cup of coffee right before recording could help?

Or maybe one less for you? (j/k)

Related to this diavlog's discussion of the pluses and minuses of blogs and blog commentary, this week's On The Media has some interesting segments. They focus mostly on the perspectives of newspaper and magazine people reacting to the implementation of user comment sections on their sites. You'll be shocked, shocked to hear Lee Siegel weigh in with some scolding, but there are other takes on the matter, too. Listen here, here, and here, in that order. Or, listen to the whole show here. (Tip -- the promotional announcements at the beginning of the audio streams last for forty seconds. Not that I'm encouraging you to skip poor NPR's shoutouts to their sponsors or anything.)

Quoting Eastwest: This was an OK DV, but it ran much longer than necessary at least for the relatively sparse amount of territory it actually covered. It seemed to me to stagnate a bit in a low-energy rehashing of essentially the same points.

Agree with you (slightly) that the conversation started to run out of steam. In their defense though, these are weighty topics and it is easy to get too contemplative and lose the idea that diavlogs are not just conversations but also presentations. What struck me in this conversation was the hesitation of both to embrace the private funding of research. Maybe it is just the libertarian in me, but I find the idea quite appealing. So what if some rich donor gets a few individuals to delve into what the mainstream may consider fringe (in the stated case, the mixing of religion and science)? Money always comes with strings (er... um...) attached, whether it be from the state (who stole (taxed) it from the private sphere) or an individual (or foundation.) Did both guests mean to imply that science should purely be the realm of socialism?

Quoting InJapan: What struck me in this conversation was the hesitation of both to embrace the private funding of research. Maybe it is just the libertarian in me, but I find the idea quite appealing. So what if some rich donor gets a few individuals to delve into what the mainstream may consider fringe (in the stated case, the mixing of religion and science)? Money always comes with strings (er... um...) attached, whether it be from the state (who stole (taxed) it from the private sphere) or an individual (or foundation.) Did both guests mean to imply that science should purely be the realm of socialism?

Although one could argue that there is no 100% unbiased source of funding, at least the government funding tends to be "pluralistic" and is subject to reviews and accountability. If a significant source of funding came from private money directly via a foundation of one kind or another, it is plausible that research would be selectively geared in a certain direction. Of course, you could say that has always been the case... But even if so, we should still strive for some objectivity. Liberty should allow the exploration of

Quoting Ocean: Although one could argue that there is no 100% unbiased source of funding, at least the government funding tends to be "pluralistic" and is subject to reviews and accountability. If a significant source of funding came from private money directly via a foundation of one kind or another, it is plausible that research would be selectively geared in a certain direction. Of course, you could say that has always been the case... But even if so, we should still strive for some objectivity. Liberty should allow the exploration of all possible options, not just those supported by the money-holders. Or is liberty only for some?

I agree with that. Also there's the problem that getting private funding would be far more likely in cases where profitable applications are apparent. Imagine Einstein working out the solution to General Relativity - he fumbled around for ten years with an ambitious and extremely abstract goal following paths that led to areas like Riemann geometry, challenging stuff that few people had heard of and which he was, in many ways, ill equipped to deal with - If he'd needed to find an engineering application beforehand, the

Quoting AemJeff: , the fundamental breakthroughs came primarily from the academic world, not the corporate world.

Unfortunately "fundamental breakthroughs" implies a value judgment. For some the only valuable breakthrough is the one that leads to an immediate application. For others the value is in the contribution to our body of knowledge, regardless of an immediate practical application. Science vs engineering. Even more worrisome is an ideologically driven quest. Considering the limitations of science, and the limitations of dissemination of its findings, private capital can go a long way to support whatever their skewed story, by selective funding, lobbying or buying media. What about oil money concealing climate change in this country? What was our U.S. media doing while Europe, for example, has been preparing for years? Oh, well, that's another topic...

Quoting bjkeefe: Or maybe one less [cup of coffee] for you?

(j/k)

No, not really. They were so putting me to sleep that I was nearly tempted to reach for some more coffee half-way through. I'll listen to a 90-minute DV any day. I only ask that it have rich enough content to warrant my time. The participants here did cover some other interesting material about academic politics, egos, blogs, effects of philanthropy skewing research, too many folks competing for too few jobs in the same boutique research area, the fate-determining nature of one's chosen dissertation, topic, etc., but still, they did keep repeating barely differing permutations of the two sides of the controversy about the advisability of muddying up the stairwell of the Ivory Tower with the tracks of the rabble citizenry. Hence the unnecessary tediousness. EW

Quoting bjkeefe: Related to this diavlog's discussion of the pluses and minuses of blogs and blog commentary, this week's On The Media has some interesting segments. They focus mostly on the perspectives of newspaper and magazine people reacting to the implementation of user comment sections on their sites.

On the Media: Yeah, listened to that Friday night. One of my favorite streamables. Love both Garfield & Gladstone, though they're certainly ordinary professional mortals. Example: When Garfield panned Colbert's marvelous skewering of both president and press at the annual press / president dinner a couple years ago. I guess even the semi-contrarians hate being told to their face they're mere stenographers for the party in power's latest line. Speaking truth to power pisses off the acolytes, too. EW

Quoting Eastwest: ... but still, they did keep repeating barely differing permutations of the two sides of the controversy about the advisability of muddying up the stairwell of the Ivory Tower with the tracks of the rabble citizenry. Hence the unnecessary tediousness.

Can't really disagree with that.

Quoting Eastwest: On the Media: Yeah, listened to that Friday night. One of my favorite streamables. Love both Garfield & Gladstone, though they're certainly ordinary professional mortals. Example: When Garfield panned Colbert's marvelous skewering of both president and press at the annual press / president dinner a couple years ago. I guess even the semi-contrarians hate being told to their face they're mere stenographers for the party in power's latest line. Speaking truth to power pisses off the acolytes, too.

EW

Huh. I don't remember that. That's kind of surprising, given what I think of Garfield's usual iconoclastic attitude toward the powers that be. [At this point, it occurred to me to check the archives, rather than my memory.] I took a look at the transcript, and I don't think it reads as Garfield panning Colbert. It's more Garfield noting that Colbert's performance didn't go over well with those in attendance, but criticizing them for that (and their reactions the next day, in print), not Colbert. I suppose you could read some of Garfield's earlier remarks as a mild questioning of Colbert's sense of time and place, but I think Garfield's concluding thoughts bring it home:

What is the sound of 2,700 people not applauding? From a timing and composure point of view, Colbert was clearly off his stride. How much of this was

Quoting bjkeefe: Huh. I don't remember that. That's kind of surprising, given what I think of Garfield's usual iconoclastic attitude toward the powers that be.

Well, you know how Bob's "voice," "affect," and uniquely expressive audio "presence" carry so much beyond mere words recorded in a transcript. I listened very carefully to it at the time after having watched the Colbert performance at least a couple times, also very closely. My impression was that Colbert pulled off a stunningly ballsy performance wherein he good-naturedly but deliberately and mercilessly skewered nearly everybody in the room except for his one Reporter co-conspirator among the White House Press corps. I think he deliberately took no prisoners because the state of affairs had descended so far into complicity with corruption and abuse of power in high places. If you weren't one of those being skewered, it was hilarious (though it ran overlong with the video thing with Helen at the end). And Bob did not think it was funny. He was to a degree still showing identification with those being skewered. So that's my take on it. EW

First, I was pleased to hear real scientists on Science Saturday, rather than science journalists. I did hear Lee Smolin talking on bloggingheads about his book when it came out, I think. Second, though, it is somewhat shocking how naive these super-intelligent people are about the sociology/politics of their fields. And they are too specialized to have thought about the sociology/politics of knowledge generally, They are entirely focused upon how the fields of physics and mathematics work. Sabine seemed to alternate between a state of complete resignation to the way in which science is funded, taking the view that the real is the rational, with a sort of revolutionary call to reverse the trend to mandated specialization that typifies not just science, but all institutions of higher learning and all academic fields. A related point is that these super-intelligent people probably have not thought in great depth about the relationship between theoretical and applied science, or theory vs. practice generally. Hence, Sabine refers somewhat wistfully to the benefits of the "ivory tower." I was happy to get this window into a particular world, but it merely tended to confirm things that I already knew. If bloggingheads could

EW: We agree on Colbert -- ballsy is the word for it for what he did. I, like you, thought it was a hoot. I even celebrated the recording's viral spread. As for Garfield, I guess we don't agree. I listened to the audio as well as reading the transcript before I finished writing that last comment and I'm as familiar with him and his voice as you are. I just don't hear the same thing as you do. I still think he was remarking more that the performance fell flat for that audience, and I still think the entire essay from him was a set-up to deliver the paragraph that I quoted -- acknowledging the MSM carping precisely so that he could dismiss it. But, in the end, interpreting tone is pretty subjective, so I guess we'll just have to leave it there.

C´mon Guys: WHAT IS WRONG WITH STRING THEORY - Enlighten us! Academic hurdles, science blogs, etc...everything but the subject at hand-String Theory - very, very disappointing,

Quoting Michael: C´mon Guys: WHAT IS WRONG WITH STRING THEORY - Enlighten us! Academic hurdles, science blogs, etc...everything but the subject at hand-String Theory - very, very disappointing,

In defense of Peter and Sabine, they planned going in not to talk much about this:

Today’s “Science Saturday” on Bloggingheads features me and Sabine Hossenfelder, supposedly talking about What’s wrong with string theory. Actually, we both agreed that we were pretty tired of that topic, so tried to discuss some more interesting related issues we both have an interest in.

Blame the BH.tv title creator for the false advertising, not them.

Quoting Michael: C´mon Guys: WHAT IS WRONG WITH STRING THEORY - Enlighten us! Academic hurdles, science blogs, etc...everything but the subject at hand-String Theory - very, very disappointing,

At least we heard the problem framed in a way that makes sense, for once. Or, I should say that Peter's concise summary of how he sees those problems (which I dingalinked above) seems to me a good place to start.

Quoting bjkeefe: Blame the BH.tv title creator for the false advertising, not them.

Who says the titles should have anything to do with the content, anyway? At least it wasn't wacky or cute... it was just false.

The problem with string theory is that, per Peter, it has made no predictions to date. It is purely theoretical. However, Peter seemed to think that string theory could be altered in such a way as to make it predictive, whereas I think some people make a stronger claim, viz. that string theory is precluded in principle from making predictions, which is a rather serious weakness for a physical theory, as opposed to an exercise in pure mathematics. My interpretation of what Peter said is that string theory has heretofore been a fertile branch of mathematics but that it has not demonstrated itself to be a physical theory -- it's not physics.

String theory is simply a religion spread by an extremely unpleasant mafia - witten and his peons, Brian Green the untallented lackey whom writes books with dead prose, gross whom has sold his soul and so on.
Feynman, Weinberg, Seldon, these are my hero's! Shame on you, string theorists, I regard you as I do the Intelligent Design lobby.