I should add that I am not in complete agreement with what he said in that speech: calling it "not essential to the science" strikes me as naive. Once you start juggling two standards of communication, you are on a slippery slope. If it's OK to lie to the funding public at large, what about politicians, funding bodies, colleagues in other disciplines competing for the same funding, journal editors asking you to review a rival's work in your own field? Where do you draw the line? Do you draw a line, or do you descend into a state of generalized charlatanry?
https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.16033
That aside, a distinction should be made between
1) claiming that physics is pretty much done (what he's often accused of) and
2) pointing out factual errors in claims about the current state of knowledge (what I am doing).
If you absolutely must make flattering comparisons, may I suggest Feynman instead, especially on lying to laymen?
https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
I should add that I am not in complete agreement with what he said in that speech: calling it "not essential to the science" strikes me as naive. Once you start juggling two standards of communication, you are on a slippery slope. If it's OK to lie to the funding public at large, what about politicians, funding bodies, colleagues in other disciplines competing for the same funding, journal editors asking you to review a rival's work in your own field? Where do you draw the line? Do you draw a line, or do you descend into a state of generalized charlatanry?