3 ms·
> it is reasonable to think they would have such a perception of the field. It really isn't; what's reasonable is to always assume whatever you thought of in 1
by gnaritas 9y ago
> it is reasonable to think they would have such a perception of the field.
It really isn't; what's reasonable is to always assume whatever you thought of in 10 seconds, has been deeply researched regardless of whether you're aware of it or not. What's reasonable is to assume researchers are vast leagues ahead of whatever shallow thoughts you have on a subject since you "know" you have a shallow understanding. The reasonable person simply asks for links to read deeper about a subject, they don't criticize something they have a shallow understanding of and ask why no one is doing X.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mh-cx 9y agoOk, then please forgive my ignorance. Basically that's what I was asking for (links or sources with deeper informations on the subject). Of course I made the mistake to use “only“ where it should have been “so much“ or something. Sorry again.
- gnaritas 9y agoNot criticizing you dude, just commenting on why there may have been down-votes; people don't like it when you imply even unintentionally that researchers are stupid and aren't looking at the right things. I have no expertise in this area so I can't point you at any relevant research, but you can bet if there's something you have a question about, someone out there has a PhD in that topic.