From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/3171 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: selinger@mathstat.dal.ca (Peter Selinger) Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: cracks and pots Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:28:57 -0400 (AST) Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241019134 7554 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:32:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:32:14 +0000 (UTC) To: categories@mta.ca Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Tue Mar 28 19:01:40 2006 -0400 Return-path: Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca Delivery-date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:01:40 -0400 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.52) id 1FON6K-00061Y-3g for categories-list@mta.ca; Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:55:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: from "Marta Bunge" at Mar 14, 2006 12:48:33 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 117 Original-Lines: 47 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:3171 Archived-At: 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 > > > >