<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>String Theory: An Evaluation · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/physics_0102051/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/physics_0102051/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>String Theory: An Evaluation — mentioned by hitekker</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25575851</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:physics_0102051:25575851</guid><pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2020 22:30:02 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;The scientist saw BS, he called BS, and then 20 years later, the field he criticized turned out to be mostly BS. If you&amp;#x27;re offended by the audacity of scientists criticizing pseudoscience, you may want to read about the concept of &amp;quot;polemics&amp;quot;. It&amp;#x27;s an acceptable, longstanding form of rhetoric for when a respected figure publicly disagrees with a direction of another group of people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemic Incidentally, the author even noted his article was a polemic in the original abstract https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0102051&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/physics_0102051/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>physics.soc-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
