To preface this, I do think that String Theory is the best developed and most promising of the QG theories. But, as Dr Padilla alluded to, criticism is part of science, we have to be able to take it. It is completely correct to say that all QG theories have the problem of not being immediately testable, but on one hand we celebrate that ST dominates QG, but if people criticize QG and ST by proxy, it is a problem? Comes with the territory. On string theory disinformation, as referenced at 16:25. The idea that there is an organized disinformation effort against string theory seems a reach. I realize that because these words have been normalized in our modern lexicon, the definitions can become blurred, but its important that we are careful with these strong accusations. Disinformation includes a very clear intent to deceive, not simply that someone says the wrong thing or is even mistaken in their views, which in this case the people referenced may not even be. Two names: Hossenfelder and Woit, whether they're misinformed about the state of String Theory can certainly be argued, but to suggest they're not only disinformation agents, but organized ones is completely slanderous. Is the accusation that these people, who are Physicists in their own respects, have not come to these "anti-String" opinions independently? do you have any evidence of this organized disinformation scheme you accuse them of participating in. It should go without saying, that a number of scientists looking at a body of work and coming to the same conclusion about its worth, does not immediately constitute an "organized" anything. I am left completely dismayed at this framing of critics. At 19:45 we seem to now be arguing by guilt by association that the reviewer of the grant says something that someone else who we don't like might have plausibly said so therefore it must be invalid. It seems like criticism that one would see in their books? does that imply that the criticism is bad? none of this is addressed. It seems to almost stem from a place of jealousy, that these individuals have been particularly successful in their science communication efforts in the recent past. I'm glad Dr Padilla seemed reluctant to follow this suspicious framing. Another point, the "do you think" questions in this section leave no subtlety whatsoever about what kind of response the interviewer wishes to evoke from the interviewee. At 26:50, I think there are many reasons why "people" think MOND is a promising and interesting theory independent of the "underdog" effect, and it insults them to suggest otherwise. Many, such as Stacy McGaugh, take it semi-seriously because it fits data: rotation curves and much more, and high redshift galaxies are more natural in this model over LCDM, for example.
Ñiceeee
keep up the good work
Thanks
LET'S GOOO
From 52:23.. invaluable words from Prof.Antonio. Thank you Hassaan for bringing a very passionate person like Prof.Antonio for the podcast:)
🙏
Thanks for asking/answering my question guys. Great video!
My pleasure. Thanks
What’s the Spotify link? If there’s any
I haven't transfered this podcast to Spotify yet. Will do it in future. So, there is no Spotify link until now. Thanks.
Good job bro, love from 🇮🇳
Thanks
To preface this, I do think that String Theory is the best developed and most promising of the QG theories. But, as Dr Padilla alluded to, criticism is part of science, we have to be able to take it. It is completely correct to say that all QG theories have the problem of not being immediately testable, but on one hand we celebrate that ST dominates QG, but if people criticize QG and ST by proxy, it is a problem? Comes with the territory. On string theory disinformation, as referenced at 16:25. The idea that there is an organized disinformation effort against string theory seems a reach. I realize that because these words have been normalized in our modern lexicon, the definitions can become blurred, but its important that we are careful with these strong accusations. Disinformation includes a very clear intent to deceive, not simply that someone says the wrong thing or is even mistaken in their views, which in this case the people referenced may not even be. Two names: Hossenfelder and Woit, whether they're misinformed about the state of String Theory can certainly be argued, but to suggest they're not only disinformation agents, but organized ones is completely slanderous. Is the accusation that these people, who are Physicists in their own respects, have not come to these "anti-String" opinions independently? do you have any evidence of this organized disinformation scheme you accuse them of participating in. It should go without saying, that a number of scientists looking at a body of work and coming to the same conclusion about its worth, does not immediately constitute an "organized" anything. I am left completely dismayed at this framing of critics. At 19:45 we seem to now be arguing by guilt by association that the reviewer of the grant says something that someone else who we don't like might have plausibly said so therefore it must be invalid. It seems like criticism that one would see in their books? does that imply that the criticism is bad? none of this is addressed. It seems to almost stem from a place of jealousy, that these individuals have been particularly successful in their science communication efforts in the recent past. I'm glad Dr Padilla seemed reluctant to follow this suspicious framing. Another point, the "do you think" questions in this section leave no subtlety whatsoever about what kind of response the interviewer wishes to evoke from the interviewee. At 26:50, I think there are many reasons why "people" think MOND is a promising and interesting theory independent of the "underdog" effect, and it insults them to suggest otherwise. Many, such as Stacy McGaugh, take it semi-seriously because it fits data: rotation curves and much more, and high redshift galaxies are more natural in this model over LCDM, for example.
What are you looking at dude.
My camera and my second screen (where I see the guest) are at an angle to each other
@@Phymaths Okay that makes sense. I thought your eyes were fucked up.