> > Hello. I'm wondering if you have any comments on the Bogdanov affair.
>> I love it that no one can tell if it's a hoax or not - so much for
>> the more rigorous truth claims of hard science.
>
>Yes: Usually in science, theorizing is strongly constrained by
>experiment, and wrong theories get weeded out rather fast.
>And in pure mathematics, papers are constrained by rigorous standards
>of logic and proof. But this particular corner of theoretical physics
>has run into a serious problem (as Frank Wilczek pointed out in the
>NY Times article): it is neither traditional science nor traditional
>mathematics; direct experimental test is not in the cards (we can't make
>a new Big Bang in the lab, at least not yet), and it's not yet clear
>what indirect experimental tests will be possible, or how strongly
>they will constrain the theories; but the papers don't live up to
>the rigorous standards of pure mathematics, either.
>
>In any case, this brouhaha has focussed renewed attention on the
>quality of refereeing (and of university PhD committees),
>and that is surely a good thing. Furthermore, if someone wanted
>to test a physics journal with an intentional hoax, I'd say,
>"more power to them" -- let's see whether or not it works.
>Occasional tests of this kind are useful in any field as a sort of
>quality control (a bit like inspectors trying to smuggle guns onto
>airplanes, as a way of testing the security system).
>What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.