Some time back we learned that arxiv.org, the physics e-print server that has largely superseded the role of traditional print journals, had taken a major step towards integration with the blogosphere, by introducing trackbacks. This mechanism allows blogs to leave a little link associated with the abstract of a paper on arxiv to which the blog post is referring; you can check out recent trackbacks here. It’s a great idea, although not without some potential for abuse.
Now Peter Woit reports that he has been told that arxiv will not accept trackbacks from his blog. Peter, of course, is most well-known for being a critic of string theory. In this he is not alone; the set of “critics of string theory” includes, in their various ways, people like Roger Penrose, Richard Feynman, Daniel Friedan, Lee Smolin, Gerard ‘t Hooft, Robert Laughlin, Howard Georgi, and Sheldon Glashow. The difference is that these people were all famous for something else before they became critics of string theory; in substance, however, I’m not sure that their critiques are all that different.
Unfortunately, Peter has not been given an explicit reason why trackbacks from his blog have been banned, although his interactions with the arxiv have a long history. It’s not hard to guess, of course; the moderators presumably feel that his criticisms have no merit and shouldn’t be associated with individual paper abstracts.
I think it’s a serious mistake, for many reasons. On the one hand, I certainly don’t think that scientists have any obligation to treat the opinions of complete crackpots with the same respect that they treat those of their colleagues; on a blog, for example, I see nothing wrong with banning comments from people who have nothing but noise to contribute yet feel compelled to keep contributing it. But trackbacks are just about the least intrusive form of communication on the internet, and the most easily ignored; I have never contemplated preventing trackbacks from anyone, and it would be hard for anyone to rise to the level of obnoxiousness necessary for me to do so.
On the other hand, I don’t think there is any sense in which Peter is a crackpot, even if I completely disagree with his ideas about string theory. He is a contrarian, to be sure, not falling in line with the majority view, but that’s hardly the same thing. Admittedly, it can be difficult to articulate the difference between principled disagreement and complete nuttiness (the crackpot index is, despite being both funny and telling, not actually a very good guide), but we usually know it when we see it.
Since I’m not a card-carrying string theorist, I can draw analogies with skeptics in my own field of cosmology. I’ve certainly been hard on folks who push alternative cosmologies (see here and here, for example). But there is definitely a spectrum. Perfectly respectable scientists from Roger Penrose to yours truly have suggested alternatives to cherished ideas like inflation, dark matter, and dark energy; nobody would argue that such ideas are cranky in any sense. Respectable scientists have even questioned whether the universe is accelerating, which is harder to believe but still worth taking seriously. Further down the skepticism scale, we run into folks that disbelieve in the Big Bang model itself. From my own reading of the evidence, there is absolutely no reason to take these people seriously; however, some of them have good track records as scientists, and it doesn’t do much harm to let them state their opinions. In fact, you can sharpen your own understanding by demonstrating precisely why they are wrong, as Ned Wright has shown. Only at the very bottom of the scale do we find the true crackpots, who have come up with a model of the structure of spacetime that purportedly replaces relativity and looks suspiciously like it was put together with pipe cleaners and pieces of string. There is no reason to listen to them at all.
On such a scale, I would put string skepticism of the sort Peter practices somewhere around skepticism about the acceleration of the universe. Maybe not what I believe, but a legitimate opinion to hold. And the standard for actually preventing someone from joining part of the scientific discourse, for example by leaving trackbacks at arxiv, should typically err on the side of inclusiveness; better to have too many voices in there than to exclude someone without good reason. So I think it’s very unfortunate that trackbacks from Not Even Wrong have been excluded, and I hope the folks at arxiv will reconsider their decision.
Of course, there is a huge difference between string theory and the standard cosmological model; the latter has been tested against data in numerous ways. String theory, as rich and compelling as it may be, is still a speculative idea at this point; it might very well be wrong. Losing sight of that possibility doesn’t do us any good as scientists.
Update: Jacques Distler provides some insight into the thinking of the arxiv advisory board.
Hi, it seems to me that this is not an issue of personal judgment, as there are principles and ethics in professional academic life that are expressed in policies that those employed by universities are governed by. In the case of the Arxiv, it states on the web page that they are governed by the policies of Cornell University. These include the following, which the office of the Dean of the Faculty at Cornell was kind enough to forward to me.
“Page 89 of 2002 Cornell University Faculty Handbook
Freedom in Research
On May 10, 1989, the Faculty Council of Representatives (forerunner of the current Faculty Senate) adopted a resolution which endorsed the right of faculty to pursue research of their choosing, as long as that research is within the guidelines of scholarly quality, is accessible to all interested scholars and is in compliance with the laws of the land. They recognized that the research of a faculty member may be controversial from the moral, ethical, sociological or political viewpoint of others and therefore a faculty member should not be seen as implicating others in the university. Likewise, those who oppose research of a particular kind should be free to express their opposition to it.
Individual faculty members are encouraged to speak out on behalf of a fellow faculty member’s academic freedom, either individually or through the Faculty Senate and its committees. Further, the provost, in response to this action, has asked the dean of faculty to provide the strongest support for faculty who are threatened or harassed, on the campus or elsewhere, because of research or other scholarly activities. Threatened or harassed faculty should seek assistance through the Dean of Faculty.”
I do not know whether this applies strictly to editorial decisions made by University sponsored entities, but the spirit of this policy is clearly to encourage and support the freedom of academics to express opposition to a particular research program. I would then think that censoring the criticisms of a particular research program, on purely scientific grounds, of a faculty member at another university, while including comments by others in the same position who support that program, is not consistent with at least the spirit of this policy.
If academic freedom means anything, it must mean that the university must do nothing to impede free discussion by professionally competent experts on scientific controversies. Given that Peter Woit is a Physics Ph.D. and a faculty member at a major university, who has published papers and has a book in press on the topic, he is without doubt part of the academic community to which the principles of academic freedom apply.
As I wrote earlier, it would be very interesting to hear the opinion of Jacques Distler on this issue.
In fact, it is about time that he responds to opinions which suggest that he and/or others try to censor Peter Woit.
Lee Smolin said “… the policies of Cornell University … Page 89 of 2002 Cornell University Faculty Handbook … endorsed the right of faculty to pursue research of their choosing, as long as that research is within the guidelines of scholarly quality, is accessible to all interested scholars and is in compliance with the laws of the land. They recognized that the research of a faculty member may be controversial from the moral, ethical, sociological or political viewpoint of others and therefore a faculty member should not be seen as implicating others in the university. Likewise, those who oppose research of a particular kind should be free to express their opposition to it. …”.
Lee then said “… I do not know whether this applies strictly to editorial decisions made by University sponsored entities, but the spirit of this policy is clearly to encourage and support the freedom of academics to express opposition to a particular research program. …”.
In 2003 Cornell made a declaration that seems to state Cornell’s position about “editorial decisions made by University sponsored entities”:
“… “… academic freedom has included not merely liberty from restraints …
but also the idea that universities and schools should have the freedom to made [sic] decisions about how and what to teach …”;
and Cornell further declared “… there is strong caselaw support for government funding of particular viewpoint, which do not require inclusion of competing viewpoints …”.
That declaration makes it clear that Cornell considers that, with respect to arXiv, “academic freedom” means to Cornell the freedom to blacklist whoever and whatever Cornell sees fit.
Tony Smith
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/
PS – For reference, the above declaration was made by Cornell in a Memorandum of Law in Civil Action File No. 4:02-CV-0280-HLM in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. That case is no longer pending, so there should be no reason for Cornell or anyone else to avoid commenting about it.
Hektor,
I never did think Peter a crank, and for that matter, my opinion wouldn’t even qualify. But thanks for letting me have the fictious power. 🙂
Many times I would have liked to have seen Peter Challenge question/answer level that would have string/M theorists interact in such a way with those who knew, as well, countered what ever arguments that would arise.
But Peter I know now was not capable of doing this? This is not a fault on his part, just that a good scientist/mathematician in his profession, might not have known about the issues of the quantum gravity issues, yet is creditialed? Is this statement wrong in regards to Peter? I listened to what he said about the standard model and I applied it. Others had been too.
So, that was my expectation, and him not living up to rebuttals, as Lee might with Susskind, then, it has nothing to do with Peter.
I would respect Jacques, as I do Lubos opinion about this isssue. Cliffords as well.
Count’s point on Peter censoring string theorist, is right, but the indexing issue to the right of his blog, where he had separated. Why? This puzzled me when I seen Cosmic variance on the other side of the tracks?:) Just that we can see the numbers of, and who is against, the many who are not?
Lee, taught me many interesting things as he introduce quantum gravity to us readers. NOt once did I ever see him judgemental in his books, as to the choice and decisions to follow which avenue. Those that were judgemental, I looked for their reasons why. This can still be done in a respectful way.
Thanks Cosmic Variance for allowing me to have this space to voice my opinion. Mine, is from the public perspective.
I must say that the Arxiv’s decision surprises me. The probability that somebody finds an Arxiv article via Peter’s blog must be infinitely larger than somebody finding Peter’s blog via an Arxiv trackback. Trying to silence Peter only makes him a martyr, which I doubt was the purpose.
Anyone here heard about so-called science wars?
Recents ArXiv cases (Peter Woit is far from being the unique) are simply another example of some scientists who lack sufficient arguments against another guy with contrary views. If lacking arguments then…
History of science is full of that. Even Issac Newton was rejected by the mainstraim of the epoque and named crackpot! Gell-Mann had many problems for publishing the quark model, Feynman’s methods at Pocono were not well-received, Lee-Yang rejected, GR claimed to be wrong by several of most important scientist of epoque, Onsager work completely ignored during decades, Boltzmann durely critized by colleagues, etc, etc.
I wonder of the usage of the word “science” by Lubos Motl. I, of course, highly respect all that people devoting her/his entire academic life to pursuit a program they believe on, but to call science to a metaphysical discipline without physical support, lacking any serious result during near 40 years is rather surprising. Well, i have said now is not completely accurate; i would remember to readers that string theory has producted all kind of results except good ones.
Juan R.
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
FP said
I do not know if Jacques Distler is censoring Peter Woit’s blog or is not. Imagine during an instant it is true. Apparently many people think that would be because Peter Woit is a known “anti-stringer” but has anyone noted perhaps Not Even wrong is blocking from ArXiv because Peter is using a LaTeX-to-gif plugin instead of Distler marvellous, revolutionary, optimized, semnatic… itexToMML plugin 🙂
Juan R.
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
Considering that Peter Woit actually publishes on the arXiv, it is extremely strange that he’s being refused the trackback service. After all, the arXiv now operates as a “gentlemen’s club” where new contributors must be introduced by existing members (at least that is the case for quant-ph). I would say that if you’re good enough to contribute, the trackback permission should be automatic.
In addition (and regardless of PW’s credentials, of which I am not in the position to judge), I quite like the occasional crackpot paper on the arXiv: A few years back I saw a paper on quant-ph that drew parallels between male-female relationships and wave-particle duality. It even had experimental data! (Unfortunately, I have not been able to find it since.) Such articles really liven up the morning coffee break…
Regardless of the Peter Woit decision, I truly find it disappointing
that a site (you know which) filled with sloppy Physics, sloppy math,
and not to mention rather crackpot climate change and right wing
ravings, in addition to regular character assassinations, is actually allowed
as a trackback.
I would agree with Lubos on one thing – rather cancel
the trackback system altogether. It only sullies the arXiv, saddling the
moderators with unavoidable political decisions, opens them to
justifiable accusations of censorship for questionable motivations,
exposes the host institution to further lawsuits, and provides no service
not already provided (and better) by Google.
Anon,
One peculiar aspect of this whole trackback story is that it’s Jacques Distler whose idea the whole thing was, but if the arXiv ever decides it is too much of a problem and shuts it down, it will likely be because of his behavior. This will be too bad, since it’s an interesting and potentially useful tool, although its usefulness depends on what happens with blogs in the future and how much useful content they contain.
Moderating something like this can be a tricky business, as anyone who has a blog and has to deal with its comment section knows. But it’s just not that hard to tell the difference between people who know something about what they are writing about and those who don’t. The root of the problem here is the attitude that anyone who disagrees with one’s point of view on a scientific controversy must be a crackpot. This kind of attitude may or may not make one a bad scientist, but it makes one a bad moderator.
By the way, I’d like to make it clear that I have never threatened Cornell or the arXiv with a lawsuit, and have no intention of doing so. I’m not the litigious sort, and the courts are not the place to try and get important scientific institutions to live up to the standards they should aspire to. This is best done with open public airing of the issues, something which, for better or worse, seems to be happening in this case.
“The root of the problem here is the attitude that anyone who disagrees with one’s point of view on a scientific controversy must be a crackpot. This kind of attitude may or may not make one a bad scientist, but it makes one a bad moderator.”
The “crackpot” name calling business is reminds me primary school, where anyone different in speech or whatever from others would be called names:
“If a man reads or hears a criticsm of anything in which he has an interest, watch whether his first question is as to its fairness … If he reacts to any such criticism with strong emotion; if he bases his complaint on the ground that is not “in good taste” or that it will have a bad effect … he thereby reveals that his own attitude is unscientific.
“Likewise if in his turn he judges an idea not on its merits but with reference to the author of it; if he criticizes it as “heresy”; if he argues that authority must be right because it is authority; if he takes a particular criticism as a general depreciation; if he confuses opinion with facts; if he claims that any expression of opinion is “unquestionable”; if he declares that something will “never” come about or is “certain” that any view is right. The path of truth is paved with critical doubt and lighted by the spirit of objective inquiry.”
– B. H. Liddell Hart, “Why Don’t We Learn From History?”, http://infohost.nmt.edu/~shipman/reading/liddell/c01.html
the physics e-print server that has largely superseded the role of traditional print journals.
After 20 minutes browsing through the last year’s titles in space physics, I can’t help but snicker. arxiv’s space physics collection is negligibly small compared to the output of any AGU journal over the same time period. Nonetheless, I know it’s important to other fields, so good luck figuring this problem out…
Peter’s point that the practice of drawing the line is only potentially abusive in the hands of moderators is most revealing, since it asserts that the distinction itself is not the problem, but only the unseemly exercise of it. If it constitutes an unjust effort to quench scientific dissent, then, as the commentator Science points out above, scientific moderators are behaving in an unscientific manner.
What a dilemma! If we want to exclude the unsophisticated ideas of non-members, we cannot avoid such abuse. Peter says it is easy to make the necessary distinction, while Lubos says it is never easy. Peter seems to assert that the criteria used to make the distinction should be the apparent level of a candidate’s sophistication in the discussion, while Lubos insists that even sophisticated discourse, if “addressed to completely moronic crackpots,” makes one guilty by association, regardless of its level of sophistication.
Clearly, the insistence that a sophisticated method of inquiry is the only legitimate method of inquiry is the real “root of the problem.” Otherwise, the demeaning label of crackpot wouldn’t exist. On the other hand, how do we eliminate the “noise” of those at the bottom of the spectrum whose unsophisticated, kluged together, ideas are burdensome to the sophisticates? The only answer is the formation of a “Gentleman’s” private club, the old elitism that is the bane of egalitarianism, which, as Sean and others have already pointed out, must be ultimately self-defeating.
There is a great lesson here demonstrating the power of technology’s impact on our most basic social institutions. The scientific “cronyism” of academia is being exposed more and more by the Internet. Sean’s characterizing of the ideas of Arp and company as “crackpot” ideas, and Motl’s characterizing of Woit’s ideas as “completely silly” and “squarely on the crackpot territory,” while similar ideas of other, well-established, sophisticates, are not censored, only exposes the hypocrisy of our scientific institution.
Its gotta come down fellas.
I think that this controversy illustrates a real, and perhaps unsolvable problem for the layman, even for the well-educated layman (which is how I consider myself when it comes to the farthest reaches of physics). How in the world is it possible to sort out the crackpots from the legitimate researchers if you lack the time, background, mathematical sophistication, etc. to master the topic? I don’t think that the gut feeling that someone sounds like he knows what he’s talking about is sufficient. I’ve witnessed two different researchers, each of whom sounded competent to me, called each other crackpots.
The controversy between loop quantum gravity and string theory as alternative approaches to reconciling General Relativity and quantum theory is almost an example. The two sides don’t actually call each other “crackpots”, but I’ve heard (some, but not all) advocates of each side proclaim that the other side had the gone off the deep end. (Lubos especially is immoderate in his dismissal of all non-string-theoretic approaches to quantum gravity.)
Daryl, I think that this is an artificial problem created by people with extremist/intolerant views like those of Lubos.
Lubos has succeeded in making loop quantum gravity a more controversial topic on wikipedia than the article on the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
“How in the world is it possible to sort out the crackpots from the legitimate researchers if you lack the time, background, mathematical sophistication, etc. to master the topic?” – Daryl
You demand that to see something called evidence. You examine the evidence. If it consists solely of unobserved gravitons and unobserved superpartners, you have to conclude that it fits into the category of speculations which also contains organised money-making religion. If the evidence is convincing and the theory is not otherwise in contradiction of reality, then you have to scientifically appreciate that it is a real possibility.
I don’t think that Lubos’s game is that hard to read. By pouring continuous bile on critics of String theory, combined with excessive fawning towards its leading lights, he hopes to elevate his own status within this community.
Have a look at his Wikipedia entry: he created it himself!
Given that, in this day and age, it is not possible to completely censor criticism, the effect of all of this is just to draw attention to the failure of String theory to a much wider public than might have been the case otherwise. His String theory colleagues should take note.
Many point to the “personalites” without understanding that when you see through this, you look for the science.
This is what had been missing in the continued banter about so and so. Wouldn’t any good Catholic think about “throwing stones” before he himself spoke?
Anyway, Daryl saids it like I see it.
I think that this controversy illustrates a real, and perhaps unsolvable problem for the layman, even for the well-educated layman
This is an admission in bold, and at the same time, openness to perspective about the process, which ever venue?
Now, having put the personality aside, what is being offered? The same things that are being asked of limiting trackbacks, is the admonishment of maybe one keeping their “blog free” of those who he might have thought less of, and the “criteria of trackback” is being squabbled about in that case?
I am thinking of Daryl’s position now.
Okay. Only the set requirements of trackback? What are these, without inflating personal feelings.
The future? How will we interject “advancement of knowledge” through these spaces. Without them settling into matter states “less then” the desire of growth potential?
Pingback: Uncertain Principles
Jacques Distler wrote about this issue on his own blog and I think he clarified the rules. The reason Peter cannot post trackbacks is his lack of publications which indicates that he is not an active researcher according to Jacques Distler.
For quick reference then.
Well, there are obviously differences of oppinion about what makes a person “an active researcher”, but at least there’s a clear explanation: Lack of a sufficiently extensive list of recent publications means you’re not an active researcher in the eyes of the arXiv administrators. It’s useless to argue over the policy, as it’s their sandbox, but it’s not at all clear to me why it should have taken so much time and protest to get so simple a reply (which had been guessed at, but still). Seems to me everyone’s best interests would have been served by a little more openness.
Maybe if one thought in terms of Microsoft or linuxed based systems?
Jacque might have been smart enough to limit interactive comments as well? 🙂
So, if the progression of the internet is to question what is allowed in the “Click/mouse/space” then what criteria would affronted the operation of a “free open space,” now called the internet?
We are talking about institutionalized standards then, and regardless of the instituted frame of reference, another culture operates underneath the one spoken of in “trackback.”
This will have no bearing on the “state of mind” of active researcher? Limit our abilites to progress.
So in the context of choice and software developement, the whole idea is still a principaled one, and is maintaining it’s status quo?
Stallman, where are you? 🙂
Science writes: You demand that to see something called evidence. You examine the evidence.
I think that’s a lot easier said than done. We have tons of observations, or facts, that require explaining: the value of the fine-structure constant, the masses of the particles, the existence of lepton generations, the observed large-scale expansion of the universe, the matter/anti-matter asymmetry of the universe, the “arrow of time”, the conspicuous lack of observations of magnetic monopoles, free quarks, proton decay, supersymmetric partners, etc. Until you’ve actually worked out all the consequences of, say, string theory, how do know which of these facts are predicted by the theory, and which contradict the theory?
If the mathematical difficulty of getting from theory T to observation O is too great, or too convoluted, we have to rely on the experts. If the experts disagree, what then?
‘Jacques Distler wrote about this issue on his own blog and I think he clarified the rules. The reason Peter cannot post trackbacks is his lack of publications which indicates that he is not an active researcher according to Jacques Distler.’ – FP
Jacques Distler is on the arXiv.org advisory board, so his very belated, admittedly pressurized explanation sounds like an ad hoc excuse, similar to a suggestive comment at Woit’s blog on 26 Feb by Marty Tysanner, see http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=353#comment-8814. The trackback is manual yet still ignores the fact that people can be active researchers without writing string papers on arXiv? For example Woit has stated he has been preparing a book which cannot appear on arXiv, and he also runs a university maths department computer system as well as teaching maths. So Jacques Distler’s excuse is not even wrong.