[extropy-chat] More string theory: BBC Radio4

Amara Graps amara at amara.com
Sun Jul 30 19:20:21 UTC 2006


Those of you following the discussions that emerged from Peter Woit's
book criticizing String Theory might like this ~8 minute BBC Radio 4
discussion with Peter Woit on one side and Dan Waldram on the other:


BBC Radio 4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today5_String_20060727.ram

Clifford Johnson introduces the radio broadcast on his (new) blog:
"Asymtotia"

----------------

http://asymptotia.com/2006/07/30/punch-and-judy-science-coverage/
{begin quote}

"So imagine what I thought when I heard that they had Peter Woit on the
programme to plug his new book (which, if you haven't heard, claims that
string theory has failed as a theory of Nature, and that it is a total
waste of resources. As you know, I have no problem with someone
expressing that as a gut feeling, as long as they acknowledge that it
cannot currently be put forward as a fact. Nobody actually knows whether
it is true or not since last time I looked we were still all doing
research on developing the theory to the point where we can actually
address the question).

Given all the pointless screaming and shouting that has gone on about
this issue, which has been blown way out of proportion on the web and
elsewhere, I was relieved to hear that they had Dan Waldram (from the
theory group at Imperial College) to represent "the other side".
Relieved because if there was ever a competition to find the nicest guy
in the field, Dan would be in the final stages for sure, and so would
likely bring some civility to the fore. The debate has not moved on at
all since a year ago, and has become incredibly boring (I tried to
explain this to Peter recently in this comment on his blog, and this
one, but it seems to have had no effect and so I've given up on the
whole thing), so I was worried that this would mean that it would
degenerate into pointless squabble pretty quickly.

I am delighted to report that I was wrong to worry!

Except for the opening "information" pieces by Sarah Montague and Matt
McGrath at the beginning, which were both heady mixtures of fact and
fiction masquerading as a neutral piece of factual background, the whole
thing was pretty good! (Example of the fiction: Sarah Montague
introduces the piece with the statement "String Theory is the theory of
how the world works that has held sway for the lat 20 years". What!?
Since when?! Did anyone check this copy? I bet they did, but leaving in
such a statement helps with the "establishment vs the outsider"
scenario, one of the only two or three angles that will convince editors
to give science issues any coverage.)

I think that the BBC was hoping for a lot more heat in the debate, but
Peter (who had inexplicably been given a field promotion to the rank of
Professor at Columbia) and Dan were models of polite discourse! Neither
of them overstated their positions at all. In fact, Peter's concerns
were more reasonably and cautiously stated than I've ever heard before,
and Dan addressed them well. They listened politely to what each other
had to say, and then responded, disagreeing gently but firmly where
appropriate, and empathizing with each other's point of view from time
to time. And, the piece was longer than the usual four minutes (it was
eight or nine), and was not quite the last thing before the news (it was
lumped together at the end with a piece about the new Michael Mann
movie, Miami Vice)."

{end quote}
----------------

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"But as usual, everything becomes perfectly obvious once you draw
a Penrose diagram." ---John Baez




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list