> Peculiar individuals, no matter how famous they are, no matter how brilliant they are, if they’re off that consensus, and they’ve been off that consensus for a long time, they’re probably wrong.
So this guy works on string theory and has never heard of Einstein?
Why not use science to check what makes sense? - Because anyone would instantly notice that string theory is bs.
I think there should be a system, that when scientists act in bad faith (wasting money on questionable ideas because they personally profit) should retire.
I suspect when Susskind was talking about ideas away from the consensus _usually_ being suspect, he was talking about what the general public or non-practitioners should think about, especially since they are not usually in a position to judge those ideas. As a practitioner you certainly can’t ignore non mainstream ideas, or else no new ideas would ever become mainstream.
I don’t know the particulars of this debate, but as it is written, the claim is (IMO) trivially true: most people offering “out there” views are wrong. The hypothesis space is infinite. On the other hand, it’s useful to have epistemic practices that help distinguish true from false. A good one is experimental confirmation. That seems to be challenging to acquire here.
The quote continues with "That doesn’t mean for sure that they’re wrong".
> anyone would instantly notice that string theory is bs.
People said that about this wonky BS from Einstein too. And Einstein himself had some issues with that wonky BS of quantum mechanics (and he was not alone).
So this guy works on string theory and has never heard of Einstein?
Why not use science to check what makes sense? - Because anyone would instantly notice that string theory is bs.
I think there should be a system, that when scientists act in bad faith (wasting money on questionable ideas because they personally profit) should retire.