3 ms·
IMO the analogy doesn't hold up very well. Outsider art is often very good, and outsider programming seems like a weird idea (do startup hackers have less train
by cousin_it 11y ago
IMO the analogy doesn't hold up very well. Outsider art is often very good, and outsider programming seems like a weird idea (do startup hackers have less training than BigCo employees?) But that's beside the point.
If you're looking at the tiny subset of outsider science that's chosen for correctness and publication-worthiness, of course you'll be enthusiastic about it. But these people, like Marjorie Rice, aren't really facing any obstacles from the establishment! If their work has merit, they usually get a warm welcome.
The elephant in the room is that >99% of outsider science is extremely bad, and can't understand why it's bad even after repeated explanations. Pretty much all the people complaining about the scientific establishment are like "fermatists", who used to hover around math institutes to have their proofs of FLT checked. If you're not familiar with such people, I urge you to actually look at a sample of their work and form your own opinion.
After that I think you'll be less eager to throw accusations around. A scientist's life is hard enough already, without people telling her she's an insecure evil fascist for rejecting torsion fields, the EmDrive, or Time Cube.
- 3pt14159 11y ago> their proofs of FLT checked. What does FLT stand for? Fermat's Last Theorem?
- jordigh 11y agoYes. Maths cranks are extremely common. If you have an academic maths email, you're likely to receive crank emails with some regularity.
- kordless 11y agoThe only person throwing accusations around is you. This is a huge blanket blaming statement: > 99% outsider science is extremely bad, and can't understand why it's bad even after repeated explanations A challenge dealing with noise in a system is an opportunity for a solution, not a rationalization to censor people. That < .01% may be onto something big.
- cousin_it 11y agoPart of my point was that the 1% with good ideas aren't actually getting censored. If you can find any recent examples to the contrary, please let me know.
- kordless 11y agoPart of my point was that the 'accusation' you claimed against 1arity was that communities exclude outsiders. That you made rationalizations about why they might be excluding outsiders (because they are bad) serves to illustrate that the community might very well be practicing exclusion, and with good reason. I'm challenging the status quo here, and looking for an opportunity to allow quacks to be quacks while we're still 100% open to finding people with decent ideas. That may be implausible, but I'm still challenging it. :) For whatever reason, this reminds me of the recent TED talk that got pulled because the speaker was challenging dogma in research. Can't remember the title off the top of my head.
- cousin_it 11y agoIf you're talking about Graham Hancock or Rupert Sheldrake, I'll stick with the dogma. I don't think you can talk to spirits or make telepathic contact with dogs. Now I'm curious, how exactly did you come to believe that the scientific community is not welcoming to outsiders with good ideas?