The show itself would fit nicely in the time slot after Ow! My Balls!

FT

That has nothing to do with the post in question, but just would like to point out the wonderful job you have been doing Clifford with communication’s to the public with articles about science.

Your “second guessing” about what had you had done shows the care with which you wish to deal with science and the presentation to the public. Wonder spot on your character.

We eventually all get old, even if it may seem a curse to some, the wisdom from experience shines through.

I just came here via a referral from Chad’s comment section. I just want to say that I very much like Clifford’s above comment. Somebody has previously criticised Sean for ‘not having an opinion’, and I think those people are just severely confused about the way science works. For one, it’s important to know what one doesn’t know. Second, Carl above is asking Clifford for an ‘explanation’. Look, Clifford isn’t here to ‘explain’ papers on the arxiv, and certainly not if he’s not interested. Qualified opinions on papers should be provided by peer review, and there is a reason why this usually takes a lot of time. I very much dislike the pressure on scientists to come up with an opinion fast, and prematurely. I.e. the NewScientist people had actually asked for comments before the paper was even on the arxiv (the deadline got later extended though). This is a very worrisome development in a field where it might take years to judge on the prospect of an idea. I find it inappropriate to report on papers and ask people to comment on it before peer review, or before people had at least some months to think about it.
Bottomline is, I encourage you to refuse to comment if you don’t want to or don’t feel comfortable with it. There is absolutely no reason why blogs should pick up every topic that currently seems to be hip. The only reason why my post went out the minute Garrett’s paper was on the arxiv was that I had written it previously, since Garrett was here for a visist, we talked about it extensively, and I had a copy of the paper before it went on the preprint server. I genuinely had no clue the paper would cause such a hype. Best,

B.

I did not know I was required to blog about everything that others might find interesting.

In fact, I simply was not aware of the paper, or the discussions. I’ve been busy with other things and did not look at Bee’s discussion until Carl pointed it out (thanks Carl). Even if I had taken a look at it before now, I am not obliged to write a single word about it on my blog or anywhere else. I don’t see the contract where I agreed to anything like that. I read lots of papers every week… I don’t blog about all of them. Hardly any of them, in fact. I’m very sorry if you have that expectation, but I made no such promise.

Please look elsewhere for obligatory reactionary stuff. I’ll continue to blog about what time and desire conspire to allow me to. If you don’t like it… please accept my apologies and my best wishes and go and read elsewhere.

Best,

-cvj

Maybe a teensy, weensy shred of scientific curiosity?

You could at least mention it and provide some sort of explanation for why you know it can’t mean anything.

And could you remind me what exactly requires me to do so? I’ll blog about whatever I want to and that’s pretty much all there is to it.

Best,

-cvj

If I hadn’t bothered to read Nigel Cook’s blog from hell, I’d never have known to come over here and laugh at your predicament. I’m sorry to say that I think this is hilarious and I am considering purchasing a TV just so that I can channel surf until I see video of you alternating with large breasted women. This reminds me of the victims of that movie “Borat”.

Best,

-cvj

One always takes a risk while dealing with the “press”. A while ago a smart writer for the Discover magazine interviewed me about string theory for about 5 hrs. When the interview came out in the magazine, it had a nice picture of me, but the only thing they said about me was that I was wearing nice boots!

In olden days, one who had the sword got the last word, Now a days, the one who has the scissor gets not just the last word, but the first and second and all the inbetween words too.

“Did I know that the can discussion was relevant to a woman crushing a can with her breasts? Yes I did, but I made it clear that I wanted to have nothing to do with that part. I would answer the physics question about how much weight you’d have to stack on a typical beer can to have it collapse, and what the issues were. Sadly, they cut all that out and just went on and on about the breasts, and cut back and forth between me and the breast stuff, including having me say at the end that it looks very painful (indeed it does, and indeed I did say that).”

If you knew in advance that your calculations of the forces required to crush beer cans were relevant to a woman using the fleshy parts of her chest to crush them, surely it wasn’t sufficient for you to merely say you would do the calculation but have nothing to do with the other part?

For analogy, in WWI, were the scientists who willingly did the calculations for poison gas safe from criticism merely because they refused to actually release the gas in the field? I don’t know what the answer is, but I would personally feel uneasy if I made calculations for the force a woman needs to exert on a beer can, and then it led her to embarrassment on a TV show in consequence.

“It could have been a fun show without that. Or perhaps I’m just wrong, and a boring old man.”

No, your blog - even though I strongly disagree with it - is a great source of fun to read, and you’re not a boring old man. (That accolade is reserved for people like me.)

Best,

-cvj

But flat-chested ones were?

-cvj

Keep up the good outreach work! It’s pleasant to hear a scientist being optimistic — even cautiously optimistic — about explaining and popularizing science.

For today, I’m going to let I Postdoc, therefore I am voice my complaints for me:
What bothers me, is that both journalists and the public seem to be so much more interested in, ahem, improbable science than in the usual garden variety.
Via Doug …