5 ms·

He claims that he could proof his assumptions if he were to be published in a journal but I think it would be very strange if somebody published his "research".

• harias 8y ago
  Peer-review will help with that. I strongly support amateurs publishing if they have something real to contribute. Gate-keeping based on degrees is bad.
  • SiempreViernes 8y ago
    The argument you object to is exactly that peer review will not accept it because it is trash research.
  • geofft 8y ago
    There is too much crank science in the world to evaluate it all in good faith: if peer reviewers were tasked with reviewing every clever idea from someone who notices a correlation in one data set—and, in particular, at conductor their own experiments to replicate the result—there would statistically be no time for correct science. Scott Aaronson's "Ten Signs a Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough is Wrong" on https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304 is a similar argument. Though there's no hard logic why a non-TeX math paper from an outsider would be wrong, the probability that it's right is extremely low.
    • fromthestart 8y ago
      This isn't exactly crank science. This is a valid challenge to an equality assumption which permeates modern academia and industry, with potential negative consequences, which has never actually been proven. And the same correlative "evidence" for sexism (which really is just a conflation of equality of outcome and equality of opportunity) could just as readily be taken as a manifestation of functional inequality. But social stigma and an imepenetrable bias in academia keeps any meaningful research in this area from occurring, probably because people are afraid of the potential implications. That's bad science and ultimately is probably bad for society if it turns out these unproven assumptions for equal competence are untrue.
    • iguy 8y ago
      > There is too much crank science in the world to evaluate it all in good faith Absolutely. And thus sadly a solid field needs a certain (ideally low) amount of gatekeeping. But there are also academic fields which are very far from solid, in which the same license to ignore "cranks" is employed, not to save some mathematicians time, but to build a wall around an ideology. I don't really think there's an easy way to tell the difference "from 10_000ft", the two situations look identical in that there are journals, those who publish can get jobs, and later edit these journals... and without reading any of the work, there's no way to tell if it's basically solid or basically nonsense.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
• Udik 8y ago
  As Strumia himself said in his controversial presentation, "science is not by invitation". Anybody who can present data and draw logical conclusions should be admitted to the discussion, irrespectively of specialisation, gender, schooling, social background, political convictions, etc.
  • geofft 8y ago
    Then why should he care if he's affiliated with CERN? Go publish papers to the intellectual dark web. Academia is enough of a trashfire that if you could do it better without degrees and training, it would be very easy to get other dropouts and enfants terribles together and produce results that CERN couldn't with its gatekeeping and political correctness, right?
    • Udik 8y ago
      > Then why should he care if he's affiliated with CERN? Because it's a violation of the principle just stated above. Since he proved he can do physics at high level enough to be part of CERN, but was excluded on political grounds... And yes, of course in a perfect world fair competition between ideas would eventually win. That is of little consolation to those who are punished for expressing their thought.
      • SiempreViernes 8y ago
        He was not rehired because he so publicly demonstrated he is not suitable for working together with others: in his famous talk he explicitly named and then insulted collegues because the took part in a hiring that didn’t give him the job. A big international organisation with collaboration as a core goal is simply not a good fit for a well known asshole.
      • geofft 8y ago
        > Since he proved he can do physics at high level enough to be part of CERN, One, no, he didn't, he made errors of basic science in his argument and that should make his entire physics work suspect. Two, "he can do physics at high level" is the opposite of everything CERN and the scientific method itself stands for. The scientific method does not say, if you're a genius, you can make discoveries. The scientific method says, if you work consistently and steadily and reproducibility in a community of peers, you can discover things about the world by using data from the world. Science is not about hiring mages who have a high enough mana level. CERN is a collaboration and a laboratory, which implies working together. If you're operating on a high level at your own, you have no need for CERN. If you're operating at a high level when you happen to have other colleagues around, then being able to work with those colleagues is a skill you must have as a scientist.
• educationdata 8y ago
  This is not the point. The point is that: if your study reach conclusion A, and someone finds flaw in your research method (this will certainly happen) -> you are a *ist. On the contrary, if your study reach conclusion of opposite of A, and someone finds flaw in your research method -> this is fine because no research is perfect.
• travisoneill1 8y ago
  How about patent clerks publishing in physics journals? Should they allow that?
  • tzs 8y ago
    If you are referring to Einstein, he had a degree in math and physics and took the patent clerk jobs to make ends meet because he couldn't find a math or physics teaching job.
    • travisoneill1 8y ago
      Guess that's a bad example then, but I am still against using degrees as a credential requirement for basically anything.