List of books that are acceptable as evidence

[Schneibster]

on these forums.

 

Books that have been recently denounced:

 

ISBN 0-316-15579-9 The Cosmic Landscape ©2006 Leonard Susskind

 

First Edition: December 2005 Little, Brown, and Co. New York USA

 

May I please have an explanation why this book is not acceptable as a reference on this forum, since it is a legitimate publication by a famous physicist?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Please be aware I will be informing Dr. Susskind of your response. You should be aware that he has responded vigorously in the past to accusations against him similar to yours. Good luck.

 

While we wait, I will append a list of books you appear uncertain about:

 

Albert Einstein, Relativity

Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe, and The Fabric of the Cosmos

Leonard Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape, and The Black Hole War

Kip Thorne, John Wheeler, and Charles W. Misner, Gravitation

Michio Kaku, Quantum Field Theory, An Introduction

 

We'll start with those. Apparently I have to have individual ones approved by staff. Are those all OK?

Edited February 21, 2014 by Schneibster

[hypervalent_iodine]

Really? This is the path you're choosing to go down? Questioning the contents of a paragraph from a book does not mean that anyone is or was denouncing the book. Furthermore, just because Susskind said it, doesn't make it correct and you shouldn't assume otherwise. He is not infallible and his words are susceptible to criticism like any other person's would be.

[John Cuthber]

No book is, of itself, evidence.

The points made in a book may support an argument, but they would still be subject to criticism if they are not valid.You seem to be saying that , because an author is famous, he must be right.

That' is a logical fallacy and I'm sure it would be recognised as such by any scientist you informed of what you have written.

[Schneibster]

No, I won't tell you that's unreasonable; and in fact it's no more than a bad metaphor. I won't fight.

 

As long as you admit, it's a metaphor, and that's all he meant, and I did no more than twist it, and never claimed (and in fact denied) it was correct or exact or accurate or precise. Either his or mine.

 

That's all good by me. I never claimed it was the real exact truth. I said, someone who doesn't wanna learn all the math can think about it this way and be close enough to right to kindasorta understand it at gut level. And, it's not precise so don't push the analogy too far. Didn't I? I think I did and if I didn't it's because I put it in another thread and forgot this one. And that's all I ever intended.

 

I know there are people here who know how to run the exact numbers and if something incredible and cool happens I'll hang on your every word just like everyone else. But I think I can explain it to some folks who, frankly, asked, if not entirely politely but quite clearly, for explanations for other than the elite.

 

I aim to satisfy that audience; that person is, in fact, exactly who I would like to inform. Nothing more.

 

And if someone says, well, that's inexact, and it's more exact if you do it like this, you can expect (if it's not someone's pet crank physics or whatnot) that I'll go, yeah, that's right, but you can incorporate it like this which is what I said. But what I said can only be calculated from your stuff, yeah, that's right. Or whatnot shmoozerama. Because it should, after all, be right for everyone, stupids, smarts, and geniuses. And everybody should get a vote based on understanding the consequences one way and the other.

 

And sorry but I have to come back around and ask, what books that I have can I not mention as "authorities?"

 

I need you to understand that I have nearly a hundred that I might mention; that's only non-fiction of course. About twenty physics textbooks and thirty popular physics books by various luminaries like Gell-Mann and Feynman and Kaku and so forth. I'm really pretty unhappy that this supposedly fair physics forum seems to disagree with about half of them. I'd like to know why you think that's justified.

No book is, of itself, evidence.

The points made in a book may support an argument, but they would still be subject to criticism if they are not valid.You seem to be saying that , because an author is famous, he must be right.

That' is a logical fallacy and I'm sure it would be recognised as such by any scientist you informed of what you have written.

 

Actually, no. My point was only, here is where I got my example.

 

I never claimed it was mathematically correct in detail and in fact denied it was from the beginning as you can verify from my posts.

 

And quite frankly I think it was always a good example.

 

Be aware that I have a recent translation of the Principia. ISBN 978-0-520-08817-7 Cohen/Whitman 1999. Do you intend to ban references to this book as well?

Edited February 21, 2014 by Schneibster

[John]

You're allowed to reference whatever you like. If it's nonsense, it will be called out as nonsense (and you'll probably be asked not to reference that particular source again). If it's valid, then it will be treated as such. Keep in mind, though, that as you alluded to in your own post, several of the books you've mentioned (including The Cosmic Landscape) are pop-sci. They sacrifice some accuracy and rigor in the name of understanding by the general public. We have quite a few professional scientists (and amateurs with excellent understanding) among our members, and simplifications that seem misleading will be called out.

Indeed, even seemingly rigorous statements are challenged on a fairly regular basis here. This is a science forum, and part of science is debate in the name of establishing scientific truth. The proper response in such situations is to defend the statement if possible, and to reevaluate the statement otherwise. Saying something like, "Well, Susskind wrote it," isn't a valid defense, as without loss of generality, Dr. Susskind's status as a brilliant theoretical physicist in no way makes his publications inerrant.

It seems like you're taking what disagreements you've had here a bit personally. That's not the way to go.

[Schneibster]

I wouldn't want anyone to confuse me with a real scientist.

 

I'm an engineer with a wild hair, I like to explain physics so everyone can get it. I'm not here to tell everyone the latest discovery, I'm here to make the latest-but-one-discovery make sense to people like me.

 

While I don't like the "it's in there" response either, I think a full paragraph and page number is pretty much a valid pointer. Perhaps folks shouldn't streak to prove everyone's a crank. I can hear someone's argument against it without hearing a famous, award-winning author who is presently a teacher at Stanford called a crank. That is irritating. It's aggressive, like saying, "Einstein was a crank." I think it's a provocative stunt. Leonard Susskind is not a physics crank. He's teaching physics right now today at one of the most famous centers of physics research in the world. Calling him a crank or unreliable borders on defamation.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Schneibster

[John]

Can you provide a link to the post in which someone referred to Dr. Susskind as a crank?

[hypervalent_iodine]

Would you like to quote where he was called a crank? In any case, you seem to be missing the point. A criticism of the paragraph you posted was raised and your response was somewhere along the lines of, 'but he's Leonard Susskind and you're a random guy on the internet.' You didn't make any points in response to the actual content of swansont's post, it was just a simple, textbook appeal to authority.

Edit: John beat me to it. Oh well.

[Schneibster]

I was told his book was not acceptable as evidence. Surely we're not arguing about that...?

I was arguing in favor of a particular pedantic technique.

 

Susskind's pedantic technique, in fact.

 

It worked for me.

 

>shrug<

Edited February 21, 2014 by Schneibster

[John]

Your original post claimed someone had denounced The Cosmic Landscape, and your more recent post implied that someone had called Dr. Susskind a crank. I've read the recent threads where the book and author were discussed, and I don't recall either of those things taking place.

You may be reading too much into what's been said.

[Schneibster]

Actually I think I started objecting when folks denounced what Susskind, who is currently a teacher in physics at Stanford, said in his book, after I quoted it as an example to show that I wasn't the only one who thought it was a good metaphor.

 

I think that was bad judgment.

 

I think you should admit it and move on. Unless you're a teacher at Stanford.

 

I think you should be very careful about denouncing false authorities lest you denounce a real authority and get pwnt.

 

I wouldn't personally announce I thought a teacher at Stanford's teaching technique was bad. I might say it didn't work for me. You guys are pretty arrogant. I just, you know, wouldn't call someone who probably has time on the main beam line at SLAC, you know, "not an authority." You know? I mean, do any of you guys know anybody who has time on the main beam line at a major accelerator center? If you do, I gotta ask you, how come you're involving me in this? Please write Susskind and tell us what he says. OK? And if he's not gonna answer, how come I gotta?

 

Geez.

 

Also, I'll tell you this: I'm too proud to use Susskind's example to "prove" how TV works. We both know it doesn't work like that; he's just trying to give folks who don't have all the math a gut-level "feel" for it. I never tried and resent the accusation. If you want to discuss how a TV works we can do that and it's a lot more complicated than Susskind's example; and that doesn't affect the effectiveness of it, nevertheless.

 

I mean we can reduce everything to quark and lepton interactions, but if we do it's going to take a super-duper long time to explain it all.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Schneibster

[John]

All that's been claimed is that Dr. Susskind (or anyone else) is fallible, regardless of experience. I don't know what part of physics research you think magically renders someone unable to make a mistake, but I can assure you no such part exists.

Anyway, there isn't much more to say here. You've demonstrated that you know something about what you're talking about, professional scientist or no, but don't be so quick to dismiss the knowledge and experience of our other members.

 

Take care.

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

Schneibster,

 

You seem to be putting words into people's mouths, and then attack them on that. This is similar to a strawman fallacy. Also, you seem to use more fallacies, such as the appeal to authority.

I'd like to point out that the use of logical fallacies is against our rules. As it says in the rules: The use of fallacies undermines an argument, and the constant use of them is simply irritating.

 

So, stop using logical fallacies. This is at least your second warning (here's another).

 

We're not banning books here on SFN. But as good scientists, we question everything. If you want to use a book or famous scientist as a reference in a discussion, then just write that so-and-so wrote this-and-that in a book. But don't start claiming such a reference as an absolute truth. Generally, using references in a discussion is greatly appreciated, but occasionally you'll get attacked by members who disagree with your reference. At that point, you just have to either find another reference that is acceptable to your opposition, or go a level deeper into the matter and explain things yourself. Claiming that someone is famous is just not a valid argument.

 

Btw, the moderators you seem to be fighting with are also famous.

 

Do not respond to this mod note. If you have a problem with it, use the report button at the bottom of this post, and another mod will take a look at it.

 

[ajb]

May I please have an explanation why this book is not acceptable as a reference on this forum, since it is a legitimate publication by a famous physicist?

I think that that book is okay as a reference, but it is a popular science book and as such will contain analogies, hand-waving arguments and will not present the details of any calculations. Because of this one has to be careful about the exact conclusions one can draw.

 

Kip Thorne, John Wheeler, and Charles W. Misner, Gravitation and Michio Kaku, Quantum Field Theory, An Introduction are graduate textbooks and so will show a lot more detail. Depending on what you are doing, these to my mind are better references. Though best of all would be a citation to the original papers. However, if you are talking about rather standard calculations today then textbooks are good to reference.

[Schneibster]

I am totally OK with that, ajb. You're completely correct, and in fact this is an analogy that, quite frankly after having had my behind thrashed I will deploy with a great deal more caution in the future.

 

I'm hoping to get stuff that is what they're teaching the undergraduates today and try to make it comprehensible to my old tired engineering cadre. So bear with me.

[ajb]

I am totally OK with that, ajb. You're completely correct, and in fact this is an analogy that, quite frankly after having had my behind thrashed I will deploy with a great deal more caution in the future.

Good the crisis is over...

 

Just as a side remark, you should never feel unable to question what anyone says about physics. People are people and are not always correct. I am sure that Susskind has had many ideas that turned out to be incorrect.

[Lizzie L]

I was told his book was not acceptable as evidence. Surely we're not arguing about that...?

I was arguing in favor of a particular pedantic technique.

 

Susskind's pedantic technique, in fact.

 

It worked for me.

 

>shrug<

Hi Schneibster! I think you mean "pedagogic" not "pedantic", right? (Being a pedant and all, I thought I'd make that clear....)

[ajb]

Hi Schneibster! I think you mean "pedagogic" not "pedantic", right? (Being a pedant and all, I thought I'd make that clear....)

There is a lesson for us all in there.

[Lizzie L]

heh.

[swansont]

do any of you guys know anybody who has time on the main beam line at a major accelerator center?

 

Does TRIUMF count? (I think it does) Because the answer is yes; I have done research there.

 

——

 

I really don't want to get dragged into this quagmire, but the notion that everything written in a book by a well-regarded scientist is correct and can't be challenged is nonsense. Especially in a pop-sci book.

 

I've seen claims that Susskind has been "denounced" and called a crank by someone (presumably me). The only real interest I have in this thread at this point is a post either supporting those claims with evidence (i.e. actual quotes), or retracting them.

[Bill Angel]

Two books that I enjoyed reading and got a lot out of are Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku and The Hidden Reality by Brian Greene. Both books are well written and are aimed at general audiences with little use of mathematical equations. They both contain material that is highly speculative about the existence of a multiverse reality, material that no scientist would accept as well established or validated. But both books are worth quoting to help enliven discussions in cosmology.

[ydoaPs]

What are popsci books evidence of, exactly?

[imatfaal]

What are popsci books evidence of, exactly?

 

I have read some that provide pretty compelling evidence that even great physicists will talk utter crap in order to sell a pop-sci book Otherwise I agree completely - they are brilliant for inspiring interest and hopefully fuelling a passion that will lead to reading more technical (trans. "less bullshit") texts.

 

Although I forgive Leonard Susskind almost anything because of The Theoretical Minumum.

[ydoaPs]

I have read some that provide pretty compelling evidence that even great physicists will talk utter crap in order to sell a pop-sci book

What about TV? Have you seen Kaku on just about any of his TV spots? He spouts complete nonsense.

 

Although I forgive Leonard Susskind almost anything because of The Theoretical Minumum.

The second volume (QM) comes out at the end of the month. I've had it preordered since December.

[imatfaal]

What about TV? Have you seen Kaku on just about any of his TV spots? He spouts complete nonsense.

 

 

Quite. I had read some of his earlier and a bit more sensible pop-sci and tried his serious text on QM - and then saw this mad-fool on TV and it was only when the segment ended and his name was checked that I connected his face to the name - the nonsense he was spouting would not have given a single clue that this was a Prof of Theoretical Physics.

 

The second volume (QM) comes out at the end of the month. I've had it preordered since December.

 

I meant more the video lectures which I think are one of the great contributions to online pedagogy - but the book was brilliant nevertheless