Physicist Steve Hsu claims it’s very misleading in not discussing extensive empirical research that has falsified the key claims, and links to a lengthy rebuttal.
I made it halfway through the comments thinking this post was about the gravitational constant.
It seems to me that it’s fine to attack an existing model; however, you should then present an alternative model that does a better job empirically. I don’t think the latter has been accomplished.
It only just came out, but given that in his earlier posts he expressed disgust with the entire field and regretted writing anything on the topic, I wouldn’t expect him to.
Physicist Steve Hsu claims it’s very misleading in not discussing extensive empirical research that has falsified the key claims, and links to a lengthy rebuttal.
I made it halfway through the comments thinking this post was about the gravitational constant.
It seems to me that it’s fine to attack an existing model; however, you should then present an alternative model that does a better job empirically. I don’t think the latter has been accomplished.
thanks for the link.
Not that I feel particularly qualified to judge, but I’d say Dalliard has a way better argument. I wonder if Shalizi has written a response.
It only just came out, but given that in his earlier posts he expressed disgust with the entire field and regretted writing anything on the topic, I wouldn’t expect him to.