astro
09-16-2006, 04:52 PM
Smolin & Woit are talented, thoughtful, deep, profound, and humble men.
They are working scientists.
They went to undergrad and grad school.
They have thought long and hard about physics, math, and philosophy.
It thus pained me to read Mr. Siegfried's snarky/hipster/hypester review in the NYT.
Siegfried never toughed it out--he never ventured boldy into science.
Instead he stayed on the sidelines as a cheerleader for $string Theory.
It's cool to kick Truth and Science when they're down.
Siegfried has no clue--reporters such as himself are largely responsible for the hoax that is String Threoy.
So it is that those with no scientific ability nor dedication to true, deeper science are the chief proponents of ST.
Tom Siegfried IS AN IDIOT HACK!!!--probably has some ST friends at UCSB or something.
WELL, WELL, TOMMY TOM--YOU'RE BOOKS DON'T SELL & YOUR BS DOES SMELL.
NOT EVEN WRONG & THE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS ROCK!!!!
TOM SIEGFREID'S BOOKS SUCK!!!! He's jealous--no advanced science degreeeee, no pedigreeeeeee--just a bunch of baloneeeee.
As String Theory grows the government at the expense of the common man, The New York Times and idiot hipster-hypester TOM SIGFRIED naturally LOVE STRING THEORY.
The NYT hates the common man, instead preferring the preservation of all the hipster/hypester ST penthouses.
SIEGFRIED VIA THE NEW YORK TIMES WRITES:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/books/review/Siegfried.t.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
And why the 20-year time limit? Science must be testable in principle, but that is not necessarily the same thing as testable in practice, given current technological limitations. Smolin contends that previous great theories have been rapidly supported by favorable evidence, but evidence is not the same thing as the definitive proof he seems to demand from string theory. It is not uncommon for decades to go by before theories in physics are decisively confirmed. In some cases, such as the atomic theory, it has taken centuries.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/books/review/Siegfried.t.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
HA HO! HA AHAHAHAH! HA!!
SO WHY NOT INCREASE STRING THEORY'S FUNDING TOTHE ENTIRE GDP???
STRING THEORY IS COMPLETE BS, SO WHY GIVE BS A TIME LIMIT?!?!?
HA HA HO!!!
Tom Siegfried’s latest book, “A Beautiful Math,” will be published in October. I imagine that it will be getting many, many one star reviews from rising physicists seeking to save science, judging by how much his other books suck. What the hell is he doing in science? Nowonder he loves ST--he thinks that mumbo-jumbo-hipster-hypester BS is science.
SINCE TOM SIGFRIED IS TRYING TO DESTROY SCIENCE BY DESTROYING REAL SCIENCE BOOKS PENNED BY WORKING SICENTISTS, I WILL BE BANNING THE NYT AND HIS PUBLISHER UNTIL HE RETRACTS HIS REVIEWS OF SMOLIN'S AND WOIT'S BOOKS AND APOLOGIZES!
Tom Siegfried’s latest book, “A Beautiful Math" will suck!!!
http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-Math-Theory-Modern-Nature/dp/0309101921
WHAT AN IDIOT!!!
ALL HIS BOOKS SUCK!!! FILLED WITH HANDWAVING PHONY/BALONEY/CRAPOLA--CHECK OUT HE AMAZON.COM REVIEWS!!!
http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Matters-Undiscovered-Frontiers-Space/dp/0425194175/
HERE'S AN AMAZON REVIEW SIEGFREID DID NOT WRITE:
16 of 65 people found the following review helpful:
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-1-0.gif Bad Science, November 4, 2002
Reviewer: A reader
This book does not explain science. It's author seems to gloss over very important facts in theory. He seems to have a poor understanding of the subject matter. This reader firmly believes that it is a crime to publish books that simply waste paper and trees. There are some excellent books about these interesting areas of science--all this has been done MUCH, much better and in more correct form, by others before.
Was this review helpful to you?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0471399744/
http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-1-0.gif Absence of Content, January 12, 2003
Reviewer:professor (http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A2H9DLZSXAE0FW/ref=cm_cr_auth/103-3321008-9634244?ie=UTF8) (Lewisburg, PA United States) - See all my reviews (http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2H9DLZSXAE0FW/ref=cm_cr_auth/103-3321008-9634244?ie=UTF8)It is rare to see an author tackle such a rich and interesting subject, and write a book so vapid and lacking in content. The material is "explained" in terms of inept metaphors and vague hand-waving assertions. After devoting several hours to studying the book, the reader has the feeling that he's "been had", since he has acquired nothing in return for his effort. In fact, the author appears to have no more than the faintest grasp of the subject he is writing about.
http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/nav2/images/transp.gif 24 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-1-0.gif Poorly written and vague, October 29, 2002
Reviewer:rob (http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/AVQXDQJ5E77VZ/ref=cm_cr_auth/103-3321008-9634244?ie=UTF8) (Berkeley, CA) - See all my reviews (http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/AVQXDQJ5E77VZ/ref=cm_cr_auth/103-3321008-9634244?ie=UTF8)I bought this book on the strength of the reviews here, which as it turns out are extremely misleading. Yes, this is a very interesting topic and I did learn a few things from the book. But I personally found this one of the most poorly written, vacuous books I have ever read. Siegfried has done a broad survey of how scientists have found it useful in various fields to conceive of things in terms of information. It is a promising project; the problem is that he has very little idea of how all this is connected. Worse, he barely explains any of the science. He doesn't even seem to understand it himself--at least when he discusses the areas I am familiar with his explanations are clearly off the mark--but assures us that it is all very important and technical. In lieu of explanation, he drops names, telling the reader over and over and over how he personally talked to so-and-so and they assured him something-or-other was true. In one particularly embarrassing moment, Siegfried actually prints a full page interview in which he asks one scientist several incoherent questions, to which the scientist replies (I'm not kidding), "I don't know how to answer that," suggests the questions are outside of his field, and says Siegfried has gotten his meaning wrong. There's not even enough in this passage to take notes on, yet Siegfried prints it verbatim. I don't mean to bash him--and I'm glad someone is taking an interest in this important topic--but I don't want others to be mislead by these other reviews.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0471399744/
From: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=459#comments (http://www.math.columbia.edu/%7Ewoit/wordpress/?p=459#comments)
woit (http://www.math.columbia.edu/%7Ewoit/blog) Says:
September 15th, 2006 at 8:19 pm (http://www.math.columbia.edu/%7Ewoit/wordpress/?p=459#comment-15993) Who,
The first entry for “Tom Siegfried” under Google is his listing as a journalism fellow at the KITP in Santa Barbara. I guess that’s where he learned about “supersymmetry particles” and all the string theory predictions for the LHC.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=459#comments (http://www.math.columbia.edu/%7Ewoit/wordpress/?p=459#comments)
HA AHAHAHA HAAHAHAHAH!!! SIGFRIED IS A USCB STRING THOERY WANNA BE HACK!!!! HAHAHAHAAHH!!!
SIEGFRIEND IS NOT A SCIENTIST--HE IS A HATER AND DESTROYER OF SCIENCE, AS EVIDENCED BY HIS SNARKY, UNIFORMED REVEIWS OF WOIT'S AND SMOLIN'S WONDERFUL WORKS. Siegfried hates the hoensty of the working scientist--Woit and Smolin, and all the grad students working for a living and aking what their giving, rocking out in the labs, pushing the frontiers of sicence beyond ST's tax and tuition-sucking, science-killing, ruth-destroying, agenda.
also, siegfried has failed to mention the wonderful new theory that is known as moving dimensions theory.
he is too busy contemplating the intersection of the ninth dimension with the eleventh. HA AHAHAAHOHOHOAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
They are working scientists.
They went to undergrad and grad school.
They have thought long and hard about physics, math, and philosophy.
It thus pained me to read Mr. Siegfried's snarky/hipster/hypester review in the NYT.
Siegfried never toughed it out--he never ventured boldy into science.
Instead he stayed on the sidelines as a cheerleader for $string Theory.
It's cool to kick Truth and Science when they're down.
Siegfried has no clue--reporters such as himself are largely responsible for the hoax that is String Threoy.
So it is that those with no scientific ability nor dedication to true, deeper science are the chief proponents of ST.
Tom Siegfried IS AN IDIOT HACK!!!--probably has some ST friends at UCSB or something.
WELL, WELL, TOMMY TOM--YOU'RE BOOKS DON'T SELL & YOUR BS DOES SMELL.
NOT EVEN WRONG & THE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS ROCK!!!!
TOM SIEGFREID'S BOOKS SUCK!!!! He's jealous--no advanced science degreeeee, no pedigreeeeeee--just a bunch of baloneeeee.
As String Theory grows the government at the expense of the common man, The New York Times and idiot hipster-hypester TOM SIGFRIED naturally LOVE STRING THEORY.
The NYT hates the common man, instead preferring the preservation of all the hipster/hypester ST penthouses.
SIEGFRIED VIA THE NEW YORK TIMES WRITES:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/books/review/Siegfried.t.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
And why the 20-year time limit? Science must be testable in principle, but that is not necessarily the same thing as testable in practice, given current technological limitations. Smolin contends that previous great theories have been rapidly supported by favorable evidence, but evidence is not the same thing as the definitive proof he seems to demand from string theory. It is not uncommon for decades to go by before theories in physics are decisively confirmed. In some cases, such as the atomic theory, it has taken centuries.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/books/review/Siegfried.t.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
HA HO! HA AHAHAHAH! HA!!
SO WHY NOT INCREASE STRING THEORY'S FUNDING TOTHE ENTIRE GDP???
STRING THEORY IS COMPLETE BS, SO WHY GIVE BS A TIME LIMIT?!?!?
HA HA HO!!!
Tom Siegfried’s latest book, “A Beautiful Math,” will be published in October. I imagine that it will be getting many, many one star reviews from rising physicists seeking to save science, judging by how much his other books suck. What the hell is he doing in science? Nowonder he loves ST--he thinks that mumbo-jumbo-hipster-hypester BS is science.
SINCE TOM SIGFRIED IS TRYING TO DESTROY SCIENCE BY DESTROYING REAL SCIENCE BOOKS PENNED BY WORKING SICENTISTS, I WILL BE BANNING THE NYT AND HIS PUBLISHER UNTIL HE RETRACTS HIS REVIEWS OF SMOLIN'S AND WOIT'S BOOKS AND APOLOGIZES!
Tom Siegfried’s latest book, “A Beautiful Math" will suck!!!
http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-Math-Theory-Modern-Nature/dp/0309101921
WHAT AN IDIOT!!!
ALL HIS BOOKS SUCK!!! FILLED WITH HANDWAVING PHONY/BALONEY/CRAPOLA--CHECK OUT HE AMAZON.COM REVIEWS!!!
http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Matters-Undiscovered-Frontiers-Space/dp/0425194175/
HERE'S AN AMAZON REVIEW SIEGFREID DID NOT WRITE:
16 of 65 people found the following review helpful:
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-1-0.gif Bad Science, November 4, 2002
Reviewer: A reader
This book does not explain science. It's author seems to gloss over very important facts in theory. He seems to have a poor understanding of the subject matter. This reader firmly believes that it is a crime to publish books that simply waste paper and trees. There are some excellent books about these interesting areas of science--all this has been done MUCH, much better and in more correct form, by others before.
Was this review helpful to you?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0471399744/
http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-1-0.gif Absence of Content, January 12, 2003
Reviewer:professor (http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A2H9DLZSXAE0FW/ref=cm_cr_auth/103-3321008-9634244?ie=UTF8) (Lewisburg, PA United States) - See all my reviews (http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2H9DLZSXAE0FW/ref=cm_cr_auth/103-3321008-9634244?ie=UTF8)It is rare to see an author tackle such a rich and interesting subject, and write a book so vapid and lacking in content. The material is "explained" in terms of inept metaphors and vague hand-waving assertions. After devoting several hours to studying the book, the reader has the feeling that he's "been had", since he has acquired nothing in return for his effort. In fact, the author appears to have no more than the faintest grasp of the subject he is writing about.
http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/nav2/images/transp.gif 24 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-1-0.gif Poorly written and vague, October 29, 2002
Reviewer:rob (http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/AVQXDQJ5E77VZ/ref=cm_cr_auth/103-3321008-9634244?ie=UTF8) (Berkeley, CA) - See all my reviews (http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/AVQXDQJ5E77VZ/ref=cm_cr_auth/103-3321008-9634244?ie=UTF8)I bought this book on the strength of the reviews here, which as it turns out are extremely misleading. Yes, this is a very interesting topic and I did learn a few things from the book. But I personally found this one of the most poorly written, vacuous books I have ever read. Siegfried has done a broad survey of how scientists have found it useful in various fields to conceive of things in terms of information. It is a promising project; the problem is that he has very little idea of how all this is connected. Worse, he barely explains any of the science. He doesn't even seem to understand it himself--at least when he discusses the areas I am familiar with his explanations are clearly off the mark--but assures us that it is all very important and technical. In lieu of explanation, he drops names, telling the reader over and over and over how he personally talked to so-and-so and they assured him something-or-other was true. In one particularly embarrassing moment, Siegfried actually prints a full page interview in which he asks one scientist several incoherent questions, to which the scientist replies (I'm not kidding), "I don't know how to answer that," suggests the questions are outside of his field, and says Siegfried has gotten his meaning wrong. There's not even enough in this passage to take notes on, yet Siegfried prints it verbatim. I don't mean to bash him--and I'm glad someone is taking an interest in this important topic--but I don't want others to be mislead by these other reviews.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0471399744/
From: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=459#comments (http://www.math.columbia.edu/%7Ewoit/wordpress/?p=459#comments)
woit (http://www.math.columbia.edu/%7Ewoit/blog) Says:
September 15th, 2006 at 8:19 pm (http://www.math.columbia.edu/%7Ewoit/wordpress/?p=459#comment-15993) Who,
The first entry for “Tom Siegfried” under Google is his listing as a journalism fellow at the KITP in Santa Barbara. I guess that’s where he learned about “supersymmetry particles” and all the string theory predictions for the LHC.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=459#comments (http://www.math.columbia.edu/%7Ewoit/wordpress/?p=459#comments)
HA AHAHAHA HAAHAHAHAH!!! SIGFRIED IS A USCB STRING THOERY WANNA BE HACK!!!! HAHAHAHAAHH!!!
SIEGFRIEND IS NOT A SCIENTIST--HE IS A HATER AND DESTROYER OF SCIENCE, AS EVIDENCED BY HIS SNARKY, UNIFORMED REVEIWS OF WOIT'S AND SMOLIN'S WONDERFUL WORKS. Siegfried hates the hoensty of the working scientist--Woit and Smolin, and all the grad students working for a living and aking what their giving, rocking out in the labs, pushing the frontiers of sicence beyond ST's tax and tuition-sucking, science-killing, ruth-destroying, agenda.
also, siegfried has failed to mention the wonderful new theory that is known as moving dimensions theory.
he is too busy contemplating the intersection of the ninth dimension with the eleventh. HA AHAHAAHOHOHOAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!