3 ms·

I've known a couple of people who were anti-Einstein, anti-relativity cranks. They were also (respectively) a skilled research chemist and a skilled electrical

I've known a couple of people who were anti-Einstein, anti-relativity cranks. They were also (respectively) a skilled research chemist and a skilled electrical engineer. Both had doctorates from mainstream institutions. They were fine to consult on topics related to their expertise, as long as it didn't touch on their mission against Einstein. Trained scientists can compartmentalize information and fool themselves too. (As the article notes, of course; Robinson once worked at UCSD alongside Linus Pauling. Pauling had some bad ideas too.) As a general heuristic, "discount all of a person's scientific ideas once you've seen them championing one howler" is fine. But if you think that your bullshit meter is calibrated well enough to tease signal from noise, there are autodidacts and non-institutional researchers who have good ideas or insights alongside their offputting HIV/AIDS denialism, Young Earth Creationism, Electric Universe-ism, or what-have-you.

unchocked 9y ago
Agreed. And Art's work on biomarker detection is conceptually valid, though subject to practical challenges similar to those vexing Theranos. But Art's past association with Pauling, combined with his charisma and rugged good looks are systematically used to provide top cover for a grievance-oriented movement of cranks. It's exactly the veneer of respectability that Bob Mercer needs to put these guys in political power. The urinalysis is a red herring.
KGIII 9y ago
I think it's important to remember that expertise in one domain doesn't imply expertise in another. It is a bit more broad than that and a recent example was when I bowed out of offering an opinion and explicitly stated that I was unqualified to opine. Their response was that I was smart and they'd value my opinion anyhow. So, it's a two way street and reinforced by external stimuli. In the example case, I'm a mathematician and don't know a damned thing about psychology. My opinions on it should carry no weight and my declination to opine should have signaled that.

unchocked 9y ago

Agreed. And Art's work on biomarker detection is conceptually valid, though subject to practical challenges similar to those vexing Theranos. But Art's past association with Pauling, combined with his charisma and rugged good looks are systematically used to provide top cover for a grievance-oriented movement of cranks. It's exactly the veneer of respectability that Bob Mercer needs to put these guys in political power. The urinalysis is a red herring.

KGIII 9y ago

I think it's important to remember that expertise in one domain doesn't imply expertise in another. It is a bit more broad than that and a recent example was when I bowed out of offering an opinion and explicitly stated that I was unqualified to opine. Their response was that I was smart and they'd value my opinion anyhow. So, it's a two way street and reinforced by external stimuli. In the example case, I'm a mathematician and don't know a damned thing about psychology. My opinions on it should carry no weight and my declination to opine should have signaled that.