[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results happens informally and only later will there be a peer reviewed counter (if the original has not between withdrawn or modified before).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.