4 ms·

"I think Simon needs a little more years under his belt (wisdom) and maybe another PhD in history to make him aware of this historically painful fact." Just ou

by edanm 16y ago

"I think Simon needs a little more years under his belt (wisdom) and maybe another PhD in history to make him aware of this historically painful fact." Just out of curiosity (really!), are you older than him / have a degree in history? I actually agree with most of what you said, it just seems odd to assume he is wrong because he does't have some prerequisites, not just that he might disagree with you (and possibly be right). Also, I think Simon Singh is actually a pretty good communicator. He's written several books, for laypeople, which talk about advanced science / mathematics. These have been pretty popular, so I think he's actually a counter-example to most scientists who don't do more. I think the article just gives the wrong impression.

josefresco 16y ago
Simon might be a shining example of the un-scientist (smart but able to talk to real people) but the article didn't portray him this way. My comment about history and wisdom was based on my own experiences as I get older. When someone is young and smart, they tend to debate with such passion it blinds them from listening to the opposing viewpoint and working to a resolution. Scientists need to learn to communicate and convert the non-believes (bad word I know) without falling back on "I'm smarter and hold more degrees so I must be right". Lay the evidence on the table, hold a debate, and listen. The most important being the listen part. Sure you can dismiss the ignorant, but not in a society where the ignorant make decisions that effect all of us. I'm rambling now ... off to the next reply.
- nanairo 16y ago
  True. No scientist should feel he can just wave his degree without presenting evidence. However I think you overlook just how much distrust there is of scientists. A scientist doesn't start on equal footing with the "guru". People (who like anti-science) are always suspecting scientist to be talking some random bullshit with big words to confuse them, or can come up with conspiracy theories to shoot them down. Scientist can go on TV and show all the pretty pictures of graphs showing their argument, but it takes a guy with no clue to say: "Oh, but you forgot X" or "That graph is deceiving because..." and suddenly the scientist is playing defensively again. And when a scientist dare stop playing the game then if he just stop replying he is accused of being in an ivory tower and being arrogant, and if he start attacking the other theory then he is accused of having created his own religion/faith because "that's not the evidence-based arguments that a scientist should do". It's a lose-lose. I am not saying there is no way out, just that for a scientist to drive his message home takes a LOT more than just showing he has some evidence.

by edanm 16y ago

josefresco 16y ago

Simon might be a shining example of the un-scientist (smart but able to talk to real people) but the article didn't portray him this way. My comment about history and wisdom was based on my own experiences as I get older. When someone is young and smart, they tend to debate with such passion it blinds them from listening to the opposing viewpoint and working to a resolution. Scientists need to learn to communicate and convert the non-believes (bad word I know) without falling back on "I'm smarter and hold more degrees so I must be right". Lay the evidence on the table, hold a debate, and listen. The most important being the listen part. Sure you can dismiss the ignorant, but not in a society where the ignorant make decisions that effect all of us. I'm rambling now ... off to the next reply.

nanairo 16y ago
True. No scientist should feel he can just wave his degree without presenting evidence. However I think you overlook just how much distrust there is of scientists. A scientist doesn't start on equal footing with the "guru". People (who like anti-science) are always suspecting scientist to be talking some random bullshit with big words to confuse them, or can come up with conspiracy theories to shoot them down. Scientist can go on TV and show all the pretty pictures of graphs showing their argument, but it takes a guy with no clue to say: "Oh, but you forgot X" or "That graph is deceiving because..." and suddenly the scientist is playing defensively again. And when a scientist dare stop playing the game then if he just stop replying he is accused of being in an ivory tower and being arrogant, and if he start attacking the other theory then he is accused of having created his own religion/faith because "that's not the evidence-based arguments that a scientist should do". It's a lose-lose. I am not saying there is no way out, just that for a scientist to drive his message home takes a LOT more than just showing he has some evidence.