[onhn]

It is fun to read these things, and of course discussion is a good thing, but I do hope that blogs and comment sections do not end up serving any formal role in the scientific literature.

There are several reasons for this: a blog's visibility is low compared to a preprint server (in the scientific community at least), the contents of the blog probably won't be as well-preserved, and there is a tendency to be more casual with the arguments.

[dpq]

> I do hope that blogs and comment sections do not end up serving any formal role in the scientific literature.

Why not? It all depends on the qualification of the people writing blog posts and comments. Remember that some 300 years ago a lot of scientific results existed in epistolary form only, and that first journals that looked like today's thing (like the Bulletin of the Royal Society) were basically compilations of letters sent by astronomers, naturalists etc and reactions of their peers sent as follow-up letters.

Naturally, this doesn't mean that anybody and their dog should have a voice in discussing matters like cosmology if they actually have no clue about it.

[onhn]

The continuation of the system you mention still exists today, and is the main channel of scientific discourse. I think it is a better channel to use when challenging someone's work.

(I don't agree with your statement that it depends on qualifications -- I don't think qualification is a measure of the importance of a contribution.)

[daveFNbuck]

Why is that even a concern for you here? This is clearly written for laypeople.

[onhn]

It may be just text, but the points being made are technical, and the blog's author is an expert.

The author of the paper is now in a position where they feel like they have to defend themselves publicly, and I don't think this is the forum for a scientific defense (for the three reasons I listed above).

[dplavery92]

>The author of the paper is now in a position where they feel they have to defend themselves publicly

Due in large part to the fact that his paper was attached to a press release from Oxford--a point of contention for both Hossenfelder and Sean Carroll.

[beezle]

If paper in question becomes fodder for the mainstream media (or at least the mainstream scientific media) then there is no reason why they should not have to defend their theory/arguments/speculations publicly in a less than formal peer reviewed forum, especially one of fairly high regard in that subject area.

[onhn]

There is a good reason: we should not be passing judgement on the validity of scientific work based on informal discussions.

[beezle]

Disagree. As just one example, the Solvay conferences of the 1910s-20s. Much of QM was developed by informal discussions, both written and verbal.

Likewise, most of the initial challenges to scientific papers/theories/experimental results happens informally and only later will there be a peer reviewed counter (if the original has not between withdrawn or modified before). Reference the OPERA ftl neutrinos for a recent example.

[daveFNbuck]

I think it's reasonable for experts to publicly explain their opinions on news in their field to a lay audience. Obviously this is not where rigorous scientific arguments between experts should be made.

[Florin_Andrei]

Not every piece of discussion in science is formal and rigorous. Einstein didn't communicate his ideas exclusively through peer-reviewed papers. There is a time and place for informal talk, and this is it.