Hacker News Reader

He's numerically sound (astrophysics is a lot of math) but stretching things on alien interpretations.

His wikipedia page captures both facets:

    Loeb is the Frank B. Baird Jr. Professor of Science at Harvard University. He had been the longest serving chair of Harvard's Department of Astronomy (2011–2020), founding director of Harvard's Black Hole Initiative (since 2016) and director of the Institute for Theory and Computation (since 2007) within the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

    Loeb is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Physical Society, and the International Academy of Astronautics. In July 2018, he was appointed as chair of the Board on Physics and Astronomy (BPA) of the National Academies,

and:

    In June 2023, Loeb announced the project had found interstellar material on the ocean floor..

    These claims were criticized by other scientists as hasty, sensational, and part of a pattern of improper behavior.

    Peter Brown, a meteor physicist at the University of Western Ontario, argued the material can be explained as non-interstellar, [...] Brown further said he was disturbed by Loeb's lack of engagement with relevant experts.

    Astrophysicist Steve Desch, at Arizona State University, commented "[his claims are] polluting good science—conflating the good science we do with this ridiculous sensationalism and sucking all the oxygen out of the room", and said several of his colleagues are consequently refusing to engage with Loeb in the peer review process.

As noted elsewhere about a competant brain surgeon believing pyramids to be hollow, it's entirely possible to reason well about physical forces and black holes and to also be utterly incorrect about material science of metallurgy.

quotes from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avi_Loeb

Here's a video essay from an astrophysicist about Avi Loeb (though she's transitioned to the private sector, I believe software engineering but I may be mistaken):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY985qzn7oI [1 hour]

The video predates the spherecule stuff and focuses on his assertion 'Oumuamua was "most likely" debris from an extraterrestrial spacecraft.

Tl;Dw: he doesn't seem to have a good reputation within the SETI community, and Dr. Collie's personal opinion is that many of these papers are insubstantial; he often publishes a couple paragraphs proposing a thought experiment or cool idea, more blog posts than research.

>Dr. Collie's personal opinion is that many of these papers are insubstantial; he often publishes a couple paragraphs proposing a thought experiment or cool idea, more blog posts than research.

Then I wonder how he got 55542 citations? Why are scientists citing blog posts?

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=CvQxOmwAAAAJ

(1) Nobody seems to dispute that Loeb has in the past done important work.

(2) Very little of his recent work seems highly cited.

(3) He has a team of grad students working on their own projects (from a video posted on this thread, amusingly, he cites an anecdote about his grad students expressing concern about the volume of superficial publishing he'd been doing and the implications on their own careers).

(4) Some of his publishing seems strategic, an effort to do the minimum possible work, assisted by his status to get things published, so that he can claim a place in the cite record for ideas that other scientists do the real work on (the video again has some examples).

(5) Is 50,000+ citations that many? I have to scroll through at least 5 pages of astronomy/astrophysics professors to get down to that count on Scholar, and Loeb is late-career, high-status.

> What is Loeb's reputation among astrophysicists?

Not an astrophysicist but several friends are. The consensus seems to be that he was a good scientist at one point but has turned into a sensationalist attention monger.

> He's written "over 800 scientific papers". Is that... a good thing in his field?

He's been an author on over 800 scientific papers: that includes his work, work he's been a significant collaborator on, and student work he's supervised. 800 is a lot for someone his age but not unheard of. People care much more about paper quality (or less charitably, citation count) than quantity.

In France we have Didier Raoult : he was a very good scientist until he became mad. And he has also published a gigantic amount of papers (with a lot of crap...). Theses two people look very similar according to me...

Authorship can be weird.

A physicist on a big LHC project will be the author on over 1000 papers after a decade or so (they average around 100 papers a year). In all likelihood they haven't read the vast majority of them, and have contributed directly to around 1% of them.

High energy physicists got sick of bickering over who was on the list and added everyone who had contributed to the experiment infrastructure. There are pros and cons: it's nice to be on all the papers but it's confusing to figure out who did what.

Yes, high energy physics probably has the highest author counts of any field. Astro papers average ~5-10, iirc.

He’s a hype-monger who is high on his own bullshit. That’s his reputation. He was a reasonable scientist but realised that being a mystic was more profitable.

How is he high on his own bullshit? It sounds like the reputation you know of is whatever the gossip is "in public." How was he previously reasonable but now realized being mystic is more profitable?

> He's written "over 800 scientific papers". Is that... a good thing in his field?

No...it really isn't.

If you want a very accurate and in depth breakdown of why, i suggest you watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY985qzn7oI

If you don't want to do the whole thing, just jump to his lovely little interaction with Jill Tarter.

Then look at all the comments trying to somehow give this snake oil salesman credibility. He's a publicity chaser who's past his prime and cashing in on his reputation and abusing his position. The fact harvard is profiting from it frankly is a disgrace.

That little "interaction" with Jill Tarter is pretty hard to believe. This video is worth watching as, in summary, she discusses science crackpottery in general and explains this case in particular as age-related cognitive decline.

> He's written "over 800 scientific papers". Is that... a good thing in his field?

Irrespective of his field, that's about one every 18 days assuming a 40 year career (he's 62 now). There has to be certain amount of repetition and re-use of ideas to sustain that cadence. Also, the 800 includes books (greater than average effort) and co-authored papers (some effort shared with others).

You gotta be Heisenberg to start publishing at 22 at this pace

> He's written "over 800 scientific papers". Is that... a good thing in his field?

as some others have said, that's not the flex he thinks it is

What's arguably more important is his h-index[0], which is 117 or so.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index