3 ms·
What's wrong with that? I mean it's not like you get a noble prize by winning the lottery! You take random wacko on TV and noble laureate, each tells you their
by nanairo 16y ago
What's wrong with that? I mean it's not like you get a noble prize by winning the lottery! You take random wacko on TV and noble laureate, each tells you their theory, and you (so far) don't know anything else. Who do you trust? Why?
I think the title _does_ mean something: it was neither bestowed upon him randomly nor inherited by blood.
Let me ask you another question: who do you think runs faster, a random guy I pick you see in the street, or a guy who won an olympic medal in athletic? Most people somehow feel winning an olympic medal is all about merit, but getting a Noble isn't!!!
- adolph 16y agoChill out. There is nothing in my comment to imply that there is anything wrong with title, or authority, or pink ponies. The author of the proceeding comment wrote "Trusting scientists because they use controlled experiment, peer review and other similar tools is quite a different thing than trusting them based on authority." The purpose of my comment is to say that the words attributed to Singh indicate trust based on authority indicated by title, membership, etc.
- nanairo 16y agoNo worries: I wasn't angry or shouting. Sorry for coming too strongly. :) I understand what you are saying, but my point is that those two are in science a lot closer than you seem to suggest. Titles (such as a noble prize) are won thanks to reputation gained from those experiments and peer reviews. If your karma system is based on what you published and that is subjected to peer review and scientific methodology, then your reputation (i.e. your karma) are a good hint that the person knows what they are talking about. In other words: trust scientist --> high authority --> gained by good experiments and subjected to peer review