I happen to agree with a lot of what Lubos writes ...,and cites the following as an example (I have numbered the paragraphs for reference):
#1) I am not so much concerned about the future of any funding because I am leaving Academia soon and I never cared about money much anyway.What, Wolfgang, is it you agree with here? Which paragraphs? Maybe #1 since it's about his personal plans? Or perhaps #2? Has he ever published anything on LQG? How about #3? Do you also see a sinister plot by agressive crackpots attempting to sieze control of physics? It looks more like a paranoid fantasy to me.
#2) Moreover, I am also a leading expert in loop quantum gravity so that switching funding to LQG would not affect me even if this question were relevant. ;-)
#3) What I am primarily concerned about are aggressive crackpots who have no idea what they're talking about and who attempt to distort science as such and force scientists to share their idiotic beliefs, just like the religious bigots in the 16th century wanted to stop scientists from doing their work, and sometimes they did so rather efficiently.
#4) Sorry to say but the list of these bigotic individuals also includes Christine who just told us that she believes that string theory is not a "theory". What is it? Apple juice? Have you lost your mind?
#5)Sorry to say but I have just seen far too much about her so that I must conclude that Christine is clearly just a plain stupid person. Every sufficiently well trained parrot can say these simple sentences that XY theory could be plain wrong, and all these things. But the difference between parrots and scientists is that the scientists don't say far-reaching statements without evidence, and they are quantitatively able to estimate their real uncertainty, uncertainty that something is correct or incorrect, and their chances that something else is right.
#6) Creationists also say that evolution is just another "theory" that is perhaps not even a "theory", and when they promote their idiotic agenda, they also start with the indications that the evolution and creationism are equally uncertain - just like Christine wants to spread her dumb impression that string theory and loop quantum gravity are equally uncertain.
#7) It's a matter of strategy and all crackpots have the same strategies of "asymmetric war". The ultimate goal is clear: to flood physics departments with crackpots who are doing various "deep discrete theories" and make them 1/2 of theoretical physics if not more. The attempts to promote the idea that LQG and string theory are equally uncertain is just a beginning to a far more far-reaching plan to destroy physics.
#8)The two theories are extremely far from being equally uncertain or promising. Even if we imagine that string theory is uncertain, it is more likely to be correct than its ridiculous alternatives at least by 25 orders of magnitude. Experts know why, laymen don't. But science is done by experts, not laymen.
#9) Christine is a layman who has no idea what she's talking about and she just wants to pollute science by her ignorance. Whenever the mechanisms allow ignorants to contaminate thinking in this way, they will always do so.
#10) This is what all of the "democratic scientists" led by Peter Woit completely miss. You still have not understood what is the difference between science and politics, science and religion, science and comparative literature, science and wrestling, and science and everything else.
#11) It would be a complete catastrophe if people like you could directly influence what's going on with science and with other scientists because it would return us to the era in which unscientific bigots who only had opinions but who could not actually analyze reality rationally were restricting the society and thinking of rational thinkers.
Maybe #4? Maybe you can identify the key scientific point he makes here. What the hell difference can it make if it's called a theory or not?
Paragraph #5) What's the deep content of this one? A critique with a point or just lunatic raving?
#6) Do you think this is a plausible comparison? Can you see any difference between the two cases?
#7) Perhaps you see a deep truth here where I think I see another fantasy of a paranoid mind. Please explain if you do.
#8) You know a lot about probability. Maybe you could explain how Lumo calculates his probabilities here. It looks pretty Bayesian to me.
#9) Only three more paragraphs to go. Is this the one?
#10) This is another one I would like to have explained. I'm afraid I found only the usual symptoms of paranoia and conflation of his fears.
#11) Maybe this is the long sought money paragraph. "A complete catastrophe if people like" Sabine could influence science...?
It is a mistake to think that the opinion of Christine, Peter, CIP or the Daily Llama is as important as the opinion of Lubos, Jacques or John Baez...
On questions of science, opinions, however expert, are no substitute for facts. For purposes of planning, the key attributes are knowledge, judgement, and objective temperment and demeanor. No doubt Lubos has knowledge, but I have seen no evidence of judgement or objectivity. In his usual fashion he has totally confused utterly different ideas and points of view whose only commonality is that he doesn't like them. I haven't read Sabine's original post, so I don't know exactly what she was proposing, but I can tell that Lubos isn't proposing anything coherent whatsoever.
You, by contrast, usually show excellent judgement, but I'm clueless as to what you are arguing for here.