Re: cracks and pots

[selinger@mathstat.dal.ca (Peter Selinger)]

I just returned from a vacation and caught up with this thread, so
please bear with me as I back up to the central question posed by
Marta Bunge. She suggested that

> anything which even remotedly claims to have applications to physics
> (particularly string theory) is given (what I view as) uncritical
> support in our circles.

Is there any evidence to support this claim? I.e., actual examples
where such research was disproportionally supported that was
uncritical and perhaps unwarranted? There have been several posts
seemingly agreeing that this is the case, but none have given concrete
evidence.  I feel that it is necessary to establish that such
practices indeed exist, before discussing what, if anything, needs to
be done about it. Can one rule out another possibility, namely that
such research is supported because it is original, timely, and
interesting?

-- Peter

Marta Bunge wrote:
>
> Robert Dawson wrote:
>
> >	It is not clear to me that the majority of theoretical physicists agree
> >with the negative view of categorical string theory held by the cited blog
> >writers; and in the absence of a consensus among the physicists, I for one
> >(with an undergradate degree and some graduate courses in physics) do not
> >feel qualified to take sides; if anything, errors should be on the side of
> >trying out too many ideas, not too few.
> >
>
> I was trying to elicit an open response from those who *do* know about the
> value (or lack of it) of categorical string theory. In particular, I would
> like to have an answer to this question. Why is it that anything which even
> remotedly claims to have applications to physics (particularly string
> theory) is given (what I view as) uncritical support in our circles?
>
> Best,
> Marta
>
>
>
>