This is the story of how a circle of popular science communicators, who built their brands on championing free inquiry, worked to suppress scientific critique. Of how Eric Weinstein, the man who condemns the scientific community for suppressing his and his family’s work, nearly succeeded in cancelling me through intimidation and false threats. And of how Sabine Hossenfelder spins the truth for the sake of audience capture and podcast hosts Brian Keating and Curt Jaimungal prioritize tribe loyalty over the scientific process. In revealing personal details I have kept private for years, this account shows the lengths to which the individuals involved have gone in order to deceive the public.
Science communication, at its best, serves a noble purpose: to act as a bridge between the intricate, often intimidating world of scientific research and the public’s curiosity. Skilled communicators translate complexity into clarity, demystify the scientific process, and inspire a shared sense of wonder. Yet a growing and troubling trend has emerged: the rise of the contrarian science communicator. These are not easily dismissed cranks. They are skilled performers who blend legitimate science with dubious claims, making it hard to separate the valuable from the misleading.
One of the most prominent examples is the contrarian physics subculture centered around Eric Weinstein, which includes Sabine Hossenfelder, Brian Keating, and Curt Jaimungal. These figures command millions of followers across social media and have built their reputations by tackling charged topics in physics, such as the validity of string theory or the claim that theoretical physics faces a crisis. Their YouTube channels feature long, thoughtful discussions with leading physicists like Roger Penrose and Leonard Susskind, and both Hossenfelder and Keating are professional physicists with undeniable expertise in their respective areas. Taken at face value, their content and profiles thus suggest that they are doing a valuable service in making science accessible and entertaining to the public.
But this engagement with legitimate science conceals a concerted effort to suppress criticism and mislead the public. The deception exposes the central problem facing these prominent science communicators: they are willing to trade scientific integrity for audience capture and tribal loyalty. A prime example of this dilemma is that of Weinstein’s so-called “Geometric Unity” (GU), a proposed theory of everything first unveiled in 2013 and revived in the 2020s through podcast appearances. Despite its lack of seriousness as a scientific theory, GU continues to be entertained by Hossenfelder, Keating, and Jaimungal. As an author of the first scientifically-detailed rebuttal of GU, I have directly witnessed how this contrarian cohort reacts when their ideas or allies face substantive criticism. It lays bare their gross hypocrisy of claiming to be champions for unorthodox views while working hard to ignore or suppress challenges to one of their own. This post is a firsthand account of their campaign to silence dissent.
Note: In what follows, I will discuss Geometric Unity as if it were unambiguously known to be unserious and flawed. For those uncertain or new to the subject, this will be justified later in the section “The Jury Is Already In”.
The Eric Weinstein Affair: A Short Recap
Eric Weinstein wears many hats. With a PhD in mathematics from Harvard, he has worked as a managing director of Thiel Capital, founded the “Intellectual Dark Web,” and regularly comments on a wide range of topics on popular podcasts. Crucially however, Weinstein sits squarely outside the scientific establishment, having left academia a few years after completing his doctorate in the early 1990s with only a single published and forgotten paper. His Geometric Unity proposal, therefore, has all the hallmarks of an outsider attempting to revolutionize physics, casting him as an Einstein-like figure toiling alone at the patent office.
But the noteworthy aspect of GU is not its scientific merit or lack thereof. Rather, it is how GU ties into Eric Weinstein’s narrative of being an outcast decrying the profound failures of our institutions. Indeed, Weinstein has built his public persona around the concept of a “Distributed Idea Suppression Complex” (DISC), an alleged establishment in academia and science that marginalizes or silences brilliant outsiders with revolutionary ideas. Within this framework, GU is presented as a transformative proposal that powerful institutions are too fearful to engage with. This creates a self-reinforcing loop: when physicists ignore the work, it confirms that the DISC is real, but when they criticize it, they are cast as bad-faith agents protecting their entrenched paradigms. In this way, Geometric Unity functions as a foundation for Weinstein’s personal brand of scientific and institutional grievances.
Until April 2021, the only public material on GU was a YouTube video of Weinstein’s highly technical 2013 Oxford lecture. That few could follow it allowed Weinstein’s grievances to go unchecked. The situation changed in February 2021 when a detailed scientific rebuttal, authored by myself and Theo Polya, was released. My critique directly tested Weinstein’s narrative: how would he respond to the thorough feedback he long claimed to want, which was free from the institutional and academic conventions he so strongly condemned? The outcome was that instead of engaging with the substance of the critique, Weinstein and his circle deployed a playbook of tactics designed to suppress, deflect, and protect his contrarian brand at all costs.
The Anatomy of the Grift
... continue reading