I've corrected the obvious typos in the second part of the title. ;-) One of the things that Ahuja notices - and I did not notice - is that the "dean" has not even thanked to his colleague from Columbia, Brian Greene. Well, it is not too surprising because Peter Woit has probably not talked to Brian - or any other actual physicist - about physics in the last 20 years. Why should Peter Woit thank physicists if he has nothing to do with them and with their field, except for being a parasite on their work? ;-)
At any rate, the "dean" is certainly happy about these developments and these controversies. When the dust is settled, more or less everyone will know that the book is a worthless pile of bias, misunderstandings, and nonsense celebrated by the moral and intellectual bottom of the society, but meanwhile, he can earn a few dirty bucks. Recently we discussed consciousness and an additional question is When does a flatworm feel really happy?
I wonder whether he will politely offer me at least 50% of the profits.
Ahuja's article is not really about science itself, and in this respect, it can't be compared to masterpieces such as some those by Dennis Overbye. On the other hand, it is clearly the best text about the sociology of science that we have seen in the last few weeks. To be honest, given the extraordinarily poor quality of others, it is not such a strong compliment. ;-)
