My editor ever said “Don’t read reviews”... But given that I’ve received exactly about pretty amazing blog, I at i time regretted non taking my editor’s advice. But, Sabine was sort plenty to offering me a take away chances to respond to her review (a review of a review?) hence hither goes.
First off, speaking of non reading things, the comprehend of the version I sent to Sabine explicitly says “don’t quote without checking against the lastly version” (See the white comprehend version inwards the upper left paw corner of this photograph on Medium).
Unfortunately, Sabine never read the finished version. In fact, the few times I asked her close her progress reading the “ADVANCE UNCORRECTED” review copy’ mass sent to her inwards August, she exclusively replied “I’ve non started it”. Fair enough, she was writing her ain mass close things beingness Lost. And she did transcend it on to a High German publisher on my behalf, which was terribly sort of her.
But the version Sabine read was non fifty-fifty proof-read, nor copyedited, nor fact-checked. Right on the comprehend it implores the reader to “not quote for publication without checking against the finished book”. This is something she, equally an author, in all likelihood should have got realized earlier writing her review. I’ve reviewed multiple books for beau physicists long earlier writing my ain -- equally has she -- as well as ever gear upwards certain to cross-check against the lastly version(s) [plural because oft I’ve read as well as listened to the sound mass earlier writing my review].
[[SH: I quoted a unmarried sentence, as well as I assume that sentence is notwithstanding inwards the mass because otherwise he’d have got rubbed it inwards past times now.]]
But, what close the kernel of her review? Well, much of what’s inaccurate close it stems from unwarranted or wrong assumptions. For example, she complains that I did non inquire equally to what “Swedish Royal Academy has to say close the reformation plans”.
First of all, I’m non certain how she could perhaps know alongside whom I’ve been inwards communication with...she’s non Zuckerberg!
[[SH: I guessed that much from my telephone commutation alongside him, as well as reading the mass confirmed it because if he had been inwards touching alongside them he’d have got mentioned it.]]
Secondly, non exclusively did I attempt (and have permissions from the Swedish Academy), I corresponded alongside a fellow member of the Swedish Academy...and they agreed alongside my proposal:
“Thanks for sending me your interesting slice inwards the Scientific American. Although I, for obvious reasons, cannot comment on whatsoever details concerning the Nobel prize, I tin sack assure y'all that all the points that were rised [sic] inwards your article are actively discussed inwards the Committee as well as the Academy, as well as have got been hence for a long time. We are acutely aware of both challenges as well as difficulties related to revising the self-imposed rules for how the prize is awarded. We also real much welcome fence close these issues, hence I give cheers y'all for caring close the time to come of the Nobel prize, as well as I volition frontward y'all article to the other members of the committee.”
How’s that for seeing what “they have got to say”?
[[SH: I was the i who got Brian inwards contact alongside the inwards a higher house quoted fellow member of the Swedish Academy after it became clear to me that Brian had non bothered communicating them.]]
Some of this appears inwards the lastly mass version.
[[SH: I am hence happy I could live of help.]]
And all of this I would have got been happy to part alongside Sabine...had she asked. I was gratified to encounter that my concerns were shared past times them as well as that they had not, equally Sabine asserted, ignored my ideas: “I’d live surprised if the Royal Academy fifty-fifty bothers responding to Keating’s book.”
I concord alongside her: I’m non convinced anything volition come upwards of it...until the twenty-four hours the Nobel Prize inwards physics is boycotted or sued. And I remember that twenty-four hours is coming.
Why? It relates to 2 objections Sabine raised early on inwards her review:
“I have got constitute Keating’s mass outright perplexing. To commence alongside allow us banknote that the Nobel Prize is non a global community award. It’s given out past times a Swedish commission tasked alongside executing the volition of a real dead man.”
It genuinely non that perplexing, Sabine. The Nobel Prize is a global event, non exactly a unproblematic Swedish smorgasbord. The prize for peace, for example, is for basis peace, non simply to implore Norsemen to halt making state of war alongside their many conniving enemies, right?
Fact: According the Nobel Foundation, 100 i chiliad 1000 people melody into the festivities each year...ten times the population of Sweden as well as close 10% of the audience the Oscars receive. Winners acquire celebrities as well as the Nobel Committees revel inwards the fame as well as adoration the events receive.
Why, they’re fifty-fifty moving into a brand, spanking novel $150M building inwards Stockholm adjacent year, designed past times a fancy architecture firm, for all their many festivities (the former venue is likewise small-scale apparently).
The winners are disproportionately non-Scandinavian as well as the prize aims to vantage those who have got benefitted “all mankind”, non exactly Swedes. In fact, the prize for literature is currently undergoing a bonafide sexual activity scandal:
“STOCKHOLM — A sexual abuse as well as harassment scandal roiling the commission that awards the Nobel Prize inwards Literature deepened on Wednesday, equally the manful individual monarch of Sweden as well as the foundation that finances the prize warned that the scandal risked tarnishing i of the world’s most of import cultural accolades.” [emphasis mine]
The Nobel Prize leaders as well as the King recognize the ability of the prize. It is non exclusively science’s greatest accolade, it’s the greatest i humanity has to offering equally well. As such it should live held to a higher standard.
With abide by to the many comments others have got made close me having sour grapes, no i who reads the mass could come upwards away thinking I genuinely notwithstanding desire to win it. Of course, after reading Sabine’s review, many have got cancelled their orders hence they may never learn!
But fifty-fifty that notwithstanding, I’m oft criticized for writing close it without having won the Nobel. I regain that a fleck silly. Can i non criticize Harvey Weinstein without beingness an fellow member of the Academy? Can i non criticize President Trump if i has non been president?
As to this snarky bit: “Keating evidently thinks he knows improve what Alfred Nobel wanted than Alfred Nobel himself. Maybe he does. I don’t know, my contacts inwards the afterworld have got non responded to requests for comments.”
I resonate alongside Sabine’s admission that she has no straight lines to the afterworld; neither produce I. And that’s the exact purpose of a will, isn’t it? “A lastly volition as well as testament is a legal document that communicates a person's lastly wishes pertaining to possessions as well as dependents”
Alfred died without whatsoever children or spouse...his volition specified what was to live done alongside the coin he made from the (world wide) patent on dynamite. After providing exactly about kroner for his friends, as well as his nephews as well as nieces (the nieces got exclusively ½ of what his nephews received...perhaps an early on source of the prize’s legendary sexism?), he left coin for the titular prizes. Reading the will, nosotros learn:
“The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall live dealt alongside inwards the next way: the capital, ...shall live annually distributed inwards the shape of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have got conferred the greatest produce goodness to mankind. ... i role to the individual who shall have got made the most of import regain or project design inside the acre of physics…”
One sees 3 weather condition for awarding the prize:
1. The individual [in the singular]
2. Who inwards the Preceding year
3. Conferred “the greatest produce goodness to mankind”
I don’t demand to have got clairvoyance into the netherworld because Alfred did it for me. It is abundantly clear what he wanted as well as all 3 of these rules are routinely ignored as well as have got been for over a century.
As for the ability of the prize to deport upon the sentence as well as career choices of scientists, allow me exactly say it affects non-astronomers too: "With physicist Peter Mansfield, Lauterbur inwards 2003 bested Damadian to Nobel recognition of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). This trial prompted the appearance of full-page ads financed past times the Friends of Raymond Damadian inwards a number of newspapers, including The New York Times.” [emphasis mine].
Wherever in that place is an idol, people volition bow downward to it, the Nobel is no baal [Warning: exactly about other Old Testament reference], but it is no exception either.
As for the pro-experimental bias of my mass “Keating for instance suggests that the Nobel Prize exclusively live given to “serendipitous discoveries,” past times which he way if a theorist predicted it as well as hence it’s non worthy.” Sabine, how could y'all fille the lovely pie nautical chart I made for y'all as well as your beau brainiacs equally good equally the accompanying text: “A serendipity criterion would hateful Nobel Prizes would move to the theorist(s) who predict novel phenomena, though they should win exclusively after experimental verification.”
[[SH: He also explains that if a theorist predicted it, as well as hence the experimental verification wasn’t serendipitous, hence what gives? And yeah, I was close to gear upwards a joke close that pie nautical chart but as well as hence felt lamentable for the graphics designer who in all likelihood exactly did what Brian asked for.]]
In the mass I am advocating that to a greater extent than theorists should win it, as well as experimentalists should non win it if they/we simply confirm a theory...that leaves them/us susceptible to confirmation bias. For reference, this was inwards the re-create Sabine read.
Alas, fourth dimension is fleeting as well as the launch of my mass is few brusk days away, hence I must accept acquire out of dorsum reacting.
But I am thankful that Sabine has permitted me this take away chances to address exactly about of her concerns. And I am grateful for the many sort words she did employ inwards her review. I relish your run as well as I want y'all best of luck alongside your book...may y'all never read a review y'all have got to react to!
First off, speaking of non reading things, the comprehend of the version I sent to Sabine explicitly says “don’t quote without checking against the lastly version” (See the white comprehend version inwards the upper left paw corner of this photograph on Medium).
Unfortunately, Sabine never read the finished version. In fact, the few times I asked her close her progress reading the “ADVANCE UNCORRECTED” review copy’ mass sent to her inwards August, she exclusively replied “I’ve non started it”. Fair enough, she was writing her ain mass close things beingness Lost. And she did transcend it on to a High German publisher on my behalf, which was terribly sort of her.
But the version Sabine read was non fifty-fifty proof-read, nor copyedited, nor fact-checked. Right on the comprehend it implores the reader to “not quote for publication without checking against the finished book”. This is something she, equally an author, in all likelihood should have got realized earlier writing her review. I’ve reviewed multiple books for beau physicists long earlier writing my ain -- equally has she -- as well as ever gear upwards certain to cross-check against the lastly version(s) [plural because oft I’ve read as well as listened to the sound mass earlier writing my review].
[[SH: I quoted a unmarried sentence, as well as I assume that sentence is notwithstanding inwards the mass because otherwise he’d have got rubbed it inwards past times now.]]
But, what close the kernel of her review? Well, much of what’s inaccurate close it stems from unwarranted or wrong assumptions. For example, she complains that I did non inquire equally to what “Swedish Royal Academy has to say close the reformation plans”.
First of all, I’m non certain how she could perhaps know alongside whom I’ve been inwards communication with...she’s non Zuckerberg!
[[SH: I guessed that much from my telephone commutation alongside him, as well as reading the mass confirmed it because if he had been inwards touching alongside them he’d have got mentioned it.]]
Secondly, non exclusively did I attempt (and have permissions from the Swedish Academy), I corresponded alongside a fellow member of the Swedish Academy...and they agreed alongside my proposal:
“Thanks for sending me your interesting slice inwards the Scientific American. Although I, for obvious reasons, cannot comment on whatsoever details concerning the Nobel prize, I tin sack assure y'all that all the points that were rised [sic] inwards your article are actively discussed inwards the Committee as well as the Academy, as well as have got been hence for a long time. We are acutely aware of both challenges as well as difficulties related to revising the self-imposed rules for how the prize is awarded. We also real much welcome fence close these issues, hence I give cheers y'all for caring close the time to come of the Nobel prize, as well as I volition frontward y'all article to the other members of the committee.”
How’s that for seeing what “they have got to say”?
[[SH: I was the i who got Brian inwards contact alongside the inwards a higher house quoted fellow member of the Swedish Academy after it became clear to me that Brian had non bothered communicating them.]]
Some of this appears inwards the lastly mass version.
[[SH: I am hence happy I could live of help.]]
And all of this I would have got been happy to part alongside Sabine...had she asked. I was gratified to encounter that my concerns were shared past times them as well as that they had not, equally Sabine asserted, ignored my ideas: “I’d live surprised if the Royal Academy fifty-fifty bothers responding to Keating’s book.”
I concord alongside her: I’m non convinced anything volition come upwards of it...until the twenty-four hours the Nobel Prize inwards physics is boycotted or sued. And I remember that twenty-four hours is coming.
Why? It relates to 2 objections Sabine raised early on inwards her review:
“I have got constitute Keating’s mass outright perplexing. To commence alongside allow us banknote that the Nobel Prize is non a global community award. It’s given out past times a Swedish commission tasked alongside executing the volition of a real dead man.”
It genuinely non that perplexing, Sabine. The Nobel Prize is a global event, non exactly a unproblematic Swedish smorgasbord. The prize for peace, for example, is for basis peace, non simply to implore Norsemen to halt making state of war alongside their many conniving enemies, right?
Fact: According the Nobel Foundation, 100 i chiliad 1000 people melody into the festivities each year...ten times the population of Sweden as well as close 10% of the audience the Oscars receive. Winners acquire celebrities as well as the Nobel Committees revel inwards the fame as well as adoration the events receive.
Why, they’re fifty-fifty moving into a brand, spanking novel $150M building inwards Stockholm adjacent year, designed past times a fancy architecture firm, for all their many festivities (the former venue is likewise small-scale apparently).
The winners are disproportionately non-Scandinavian as well as the prize aims to vantage those who have got benefitted “all mankind”, non exactly Swedes. In fact, the prize for literature is currently undergoing a bonafide sexual activity scandal:
“STOCKHOLM — A sexual abuse as well as harassment scandal roiling the commission that awards the Nobel Prize inwards Literature deepened on Wednesday, equally the manful individual monarch of Sweden as well as the foundation that finances the prize warned that the scandal risked tarnishing i of the world’s most of import cultural accolades.” [emphasis mine]
The Nobel Prize leaders as well as the King recognize the ability of the prize. It is non exclusively science’s greatest accolade, it’s the greatest i humanity has to offering equally well. As such it should live held to a higher standard.
With abide by to the many comments others have got made close me having sour grapes, no i who reads the mass could come upwards away thinking I genuinely notwithstanding desire to win it. Of course, after reading Sabine’s review, many have got cancelled their orders hence they may never learn!
But fifty-fifty that notwithstanding, I’m oft criticized for writing close it without having won the Nobel. I regain that a fleck silly. Can i non criticize Harvey Weinstein without beingness an fellow member of the Academy? Can i non criticize President Trump if i has non been president?
As to this snarky bit: “Keating evidently thinks he knows improve what Alfred Nobel wanted than Alfred Nobel himself. Maybe he does. I don’t know, my contacts inwards the afterworld have got non responded to requests for comments.”
I resonate alongside Sabine’s admission that she has no straight lines to the afterworld; neither produce I. And that’s the exact purpose of a will, isn’t it? “A lastly volition as well as testament is a legal document that communicates a person's lastly wishes pertaining to possessions as well as dependents”
Alfred died without whatsoever children or spouse...his volition specified what was to live done alongside the coin he made from the (world wide) patent on dynamite. After providing exactly about kroner for his friends, as well as his nephews as well as nieces (the nieces got exclusively ½ of what his nephews received...perhaps an early on source of the prize’s legendary sexism?), he left coin for the titular prizes. Reading the will, nosotros learn:
“The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall live dealt alongside inwards the next way: the capital, ...shall live annually distributed inwards the shape of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have got conferred the greatest produce goodness to mankind. ... i role to the individual who shall have got made the most of import regain or project design inside the acre of physics…”
One sees 3 weather condition for awarding the prize:
1. The individual [in the singular]
2. Who inwards the Preceding year
3. Conferred “the greatest produce goodness to mankind”
I don’t demand to have got clairvoyance into the netherworld because Alfred did it for me. It is abundantly clear what he wanted as well as all 3 of these rules are routinely ignored as well as have got been for over a century.
As for the ability of the prize to deport upon the sentence as well as career choices of scientists, allow me exactly say it affects non-astronomers too: "With physicist Peter Mansfield, Lauterbur inwards 2003 bested Damadian to Nobel recognition of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). This trial prompted the appearance of full-page ads financed past times the Friends of Raymond Damadian inwards a number of newspapers, including The New York Times.” [emphasis mine].
Wherever in that place is an idol, people volition bow downward to it, the Nobel is no baal [Warning: exactly about other Old Testament reference], but it is no exception either.
As for the pro-experimental bias of my mass “Keating for instance suggests that the Nobel Prize exclusively live given to “serendipitous discoveries,” past times which he way if a theorist predicted it as well as hence it’s non worthy.” Sabine, how could y'all fille the lovely pie nautical chart I made for y'all as well as your beau brainiacs equally good equally the accompanying text: “A serendipity criterion would hateful Nobel Prizes would move to the theorist(s) who predict novel phenomena, though they should win exclusively after experimental verification.”
[[SH: He also explains that if a theorist predicted it, as well as hence the experimental verification wasn’t serendipitous, hence what gives? And yeah, I was close to gear upwards a joke close that pie nautical chart but as well as hence felt lamentable for the graphics designer who in all likelihood exactly did what Brian asked for.]]
In the mass I am advocating that to a greater extent than theorists should win it, as well as experimentalists should non win it if they/we simply confirm a theory...that leaves them/us susceptible to confirmation bias. For reference, this was inwards the re-create Sabine read.
Alas, fourth dimension is fleeting as well as the launch of my mass is few brusk days away, hence I must accept acquire out of dorsum reacting.
But I am thankful that Sabine has permitted me this take away chances to address exactly about of her concerns. And I am grateful for the many sort words she did employ inwards her review. I relish your run as well as I want y'all best of luck alongside your book...may y'all never read a review y'all have got to react to!
Comments
Post a Comment