Comments on: Elin Oxenhielm and the public discussion of science http://www.gustavholmberg.com/magnitude/2003/12/09/elin-oxenhielm-and-the-public-discussion-of-science/ Fri, 16 May 2008 19:57:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Leon Marcel http://www.gustavholmberg.com/magnitude/2003/12/09/elin-oxenhielm-and-the-public-discussion-of-science/#comment-1471 Leon Marcel Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:27:00 +0000 http://www.gustavholmberg.com/magnitude/2003/12/09/elin-oxenhielm-and-the-public-discussion-of-science/#comment-1471 A friend told me of your site. That´s definitely what i was looking for. I will surely recommend you. A friend told me of your site. That´s definitely what i was looking for. I will surely recommend you.

]]> By: Off the Kuff http://www.gustavholmberg.com/magnitude/2003/12/09/elin-oxenhielm-and-the-public-discussion-of-science/#comment-1484 Off the Kuff Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:01:17 +0000 http://www.gustavholmberg.com/magnitude/2003/12/09/elin-oxenhielm-and-the-public-discussion-of-science/#comment-1484 <strong>Hilbert redux</strong> For the math geeks in my audience (and you know who you are), there's some followup to this post about... Hilbert redux

For the math geeks in my audience (and you know who you are), there’s some followup to this post about…

]]> By: Off the Kuff http://www.gustavholmberg.com/magnitude/2003/12/09/elin-oxenhielm-and-the-public-discussion-of-science/#comment-1483 Off the Kuff Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:48:56 +0000 http://www.gustavholmberg.com/magnitude/2003/12/09/elin-oxenhielm-and-the-public-discussion-of-science/#comment-1483 <strong>Hilbert redux</strong> For the math geeks in my audience (and you know who you are), there's some followup to this post about... Hilbert redux

For the math geeks in my audience (and you know who you are), there’s some followup to this post about…

]]> By: Gustav Holmberg http://www.gustavholmberg.com/magnitude/2003/12/09/elin-oxenhielm-and-the-public-discussion-of-science/#comment-1470 Gustav Holmberg Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:48:37 +0000 http://www.gustavholmberg.com/magnitude/2003/12/09/elin-oxenhielm-and-the-public-discussion-of-science/#comment-1470 Alexei: yes, the OK from the (first) reviewer at Nonlinear analysis seems to be something of a mystery. How could it happen? Alexei: yes, the OK from the (first) reviewer at Nonlinear analysis seems to be something of a mystery. How could it happen?

]]> By: Alexei Heintz http://www.gustavholmberg.com/magnitude/2003/12/09/elin-oxenhielm-and-the-public-discussion-of-science/#comment-1469 Alexei Heintz Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:34:21 +0000 http://www.gustavholmberg.com/magnitude/2003/12/09/elin-oxenhielm-and-the-public-discussion-of-science/#comment-1469 There is no place for filosofy around the case of Elin Oxenhielm! Any normal second year undergraduate student in mathematics should easily see from her text that there is no problem at all solved. Her text is just a demonstration of lack of understanding of elementary mathematical culture. The misterious thing is the unprofessional reaction of the journal (Nonlinear analysis). There is no place for filosofy around the case of
Elin Oxenhielm!
Any normal second year undergraduate student in mathematics should easily see from her text that there is no problem at all solved.

Her text is just a demonstration of lack of understanding of elementary mathematical culture.

The misterious thing is the unprofessional
reaction of the journal (Nonlinear analysis).

]]> By: Alexei Heintz http://www.gustavholmberg.com/magnitude/2003/12/09/elin-oxenhielm-and-the-public-discussion-of-science/#comment-1468 Alexei Heintz Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:32:27 +0000 http://www.gustavholmberg.com/magnitude/2003/12/09/elin-oxenhielm-and-the-public-discussion-of-science/#comment-1468 There is no place for filosofy around the case of Elin Oxenhielm! Any normal second year undergraduate student in mathematics should easily see from her text that there is no problem at all solved. Her text is just a demonstration of lack of understanding of elementary mathematical culture. The misterious thing is the unprofessional reaction of the journal (Nonlinear analysis). There is no place for filosofy around the case of
Elin Oxenhielm!
Any normal second year undergraduate student in mathematics should easily see from her text that there is no problem at all solved.

Her text is just a demonstration of lack of understanding of elementary mathematical culture.

The misterious thing is the unprofessional
reaction of the journal (Nonlinear analysis).

]]> By: Det perfekta tomrummet http://www.gustavholmberg.com/magnitude/2003/12/09/elin-oxenhielm-and-the-public-discussion-of-science/#comment-1482 Det perfekta tomrummet Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:06:45 +0000 http://www.gustavholmberg.com/magnitude/2003/12/09/elin-oxenhielm-and-the-public-discussion-of-science/#comment-1482 <strong>Elin Oxenhielm och peer review</strong> Elin Oxenhielm and the public discussion of science (Imaginary magnitude) Elin Oxenhielm och peer review

Elin Oxenhielm and the public discussion of science (Imaginary magnitude)

]]> By: des http://www.gustavholmberg.com/magnitude/2003/12/09/elin-oxenhielm-and-the-public-discussion-of-science/#comment-1467 des Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:59:28 +0000 http://www.gustavholmberg.com/magnitude/2003/12/09/elin-oxenhielm-and-the-public-discussion-of-science/#comment-1467 Did you follow the <a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bog1.html" rel="nofollow">Bogdanov fiasco</a>? There was also a "proof" of the Poincaré hypothesis that was put out as a preprint and heavily criticised and then presumably withdrawn. The B. case, though, was especially interesting because of the debates between the brothers and John Baez conducted in public on sci.physics.research (which is moderated). There is no reason at all to insist on privacy in dirty-linen washing in the sciences, and Usenet is certainly an excellent forum for arguments in ways that random websites are not. Insofar (not very) as I have an opinion on this affair, it's that Oxenhielm appears to have been cruelly let down by the reviewing process: once the paper was accepted for publication she was entirely within her rights to make as much of a media splash as possible. And if you didn't see sci.lang's savaging of the recent bollocks about Indo-European published in Nature, you missed a treat. Did you follow the Bogdanov fiasco? There was also a “proof” of the Poincaré hypothesis that was put out as a preprint and heavily criticised and then presumably withdrawn.
The B. case, though, was especially interesting because of the debates between the brothers and John Baez conducted in public on sci.physics.research (which is moderated).
There is no reason at all to insist on privacy in dirty-linen washing in the sciences, and Usenet is certainly an excellent forum for arguments in ways that random websites are not.
Insofar (not very) as I have an opinion on this affair, it’s that Oxenhielm appears to have been cruelly let down by the reviewing process: once the paper was accepted for publication she was entirely within her rights to make as much of a media splash as possible.

And if you didn’t see sci.lang’s savaging of the recent bollocks about Indo-European published in Nature, you missed a treat.

]]>