[wmnwmn]

It's funny how nonphysicists (this author) and non-productive physicists (Hossenfelder) beat this drum most loudly. How about we do this: let the people who are obviously smartest make their own decision about what is most promising to work on, and have enough modesty to realize that their decision is better informed than our efforts to advise.

[pdonis]

> non-productive physicists (Hossenfelder)

Why do you think Hossenfelder is a non-productive physicist?

> How about we do this: let the people who are obviously smartest make their own decision about what is most promising to work on

We've been doing that all along in physics, and it doesn't seem to be working out.

[wallace_f]

It's remarkable how rotten the state of things are in academia while everyone beats around this bush without outright saying it.

Some of the best physicists in the world right now are likely to be caught up in just providing for themselves. Why cant someone in Africa, or wherever, get a degree in physics from Harvard? Why do they need anyone's permission to have access to this? Why can't they at least have access to course material and testing, so they can openly compete? Who is afraid of the competition? There's no ethical justification for that. The world spends trillions in public and private money already. This is just one criticism, and I'm not alone in classifying academia as rotten. Feynman said the same. So few people have the bravery to stand up to an entire socioeconomic complex, even when it means people will die and projects will fail dramatically: see the Nasa Challenger Groupthink Disaster (which Feynman also criticized).

[xv1823]

There is a very interesting interview with Edward Teller, who makes the exact point that throwing money at science does NOT produce results, whereas throwing money at technology sometimes does.

I think Teller qualifies as smart.

[neonate]

Because being smart doesn't make you immune from social biases and institutional incentives, which is the point of the OP.

[plmu]

Those that decide to stay in the race, are not necessarily the smartest. Maybe they are the most focussed, more blind to external impulses and "distractions". Plus they are more likely, being in the field, to be affected by these biases.

It would be unwise for any field, even that of brilliant physicists, to ignore external opinions and inputs.

[PopePompus]

Sounds good, as long as the public isn't expected to cough up the funds for their research. Otherwise, don't blame the public for wondering if the LHC was worth the cost.

[JoshCalbet]

"Their research" is the one that keeps pushing technology forwards, the technology that you are using in this moment