You mention the fact that “controlled forums” such as a collaboration meeting or other “real” venues are the proper place for scientific discussions, because the internet is full of fool’s gold and noise is high. I agree that noise is high, but I at times grieve for the fact that large HEP collaborations seem to favor the production of uncontroversial measurements over out-of-the-mainstream searches and independent thought.
There seems to be some kind of peer pressure at work, which ultimately discourages anybody from embarking in a study which most colleagues will find unconventional. The big collaborations are a place for conformism.
On the other hand, the discussions that arise on the internet, in forums such as physics blogs or similar sites, may contain lots of noise, but allow people to speak much more freely about what they think, and to discuss without the above peer pressure.
Of course, the need to keep secrecy on “unblessed” material still is enforced, and this is as good as is bad. But that is another topic.

All in all, I still think that my blog gave me the opportunity to get to discuss experimental results of particle physics with people with whom I seldom interact, like theorists who stay away from conferences but have bold new ideas. Or, as in the case of the Higgs bump, to create a mess by discussing too openly a stupid fluctuation – for the purpose of showing how NOT to do physics!

Cheers,
T.

thank you for your kind words, I really appreciate your support and to see non-physicists taking a stand towards openness in scientific production. For more on the kind of trouble I get at times for what I do here, read my post of today, “The trouble with… talking about physics”.

Cheers,
T.

No harm in sober speculation – on the contrary particle physicists need good PR – and you’re doing a great service, Tommaso, even if the comic press overreacts from time to time.

Keep it up!

thank you for your comment… I mostly share your views, but I would like to make some distinguos… They will have to wait for a few days though, I need to be back with groceries in 10 minutes or my wife will get pissed!

Cheers,
T.

I was in Run1 too and the physics discussions were great. I miss them too, but my life has taken me elsewhere. But they were great because they took place in the natural places, the offices, the hall ways, the lunch rooms, the parking lots, the elevators, the meeting rooms and the high-tech emails. Then came telelinks, webcams and now blogs. Blogs are another extension to the ways physicists interact with one another. It is great as it allows a working group to share plots figures and much much more.

But I fear that internet is too open to too many people and these people do not necessarily add construcitvely simply because they are not aware of or share the values behind the notion of getting a plot “blessed”. (For those that are not members of a scientific collaboration, “blessed” is just a word and no “ritual” is involved). The real trouble with blogs and internet is that it is so full of bogus information and down right disinformation. There is true gold, but much much fools gold. What makes gold so precious is that it is rare; what make fools gold cheap if not worthless is that it abounds. You, as a high energy physicist looking for rare signals in an ocean of junk, know this is true. Without a controlled filtering there is no way anyone reading blogs could possibly make out the difference. What makes a blog credible? Fancy plots? The occasional family photo? Being interviewed by a journalist? Of course not!

Discussions of controversial science (in this case signal vs no-signal) can only take place in proper forums. What makes a proper scientific forum and what makes a forum make good science? I am not a post-modernist sociologist or a philosofer of science so I as naive as you are on this, but my guts tell me that there is no alternative to controlled discussions.