3 ms·

I'm not a professional scientist, but shouldn't the spirit of science be curiosity and exploration at all times, not shooting down a new idea as soon as you hea

I'm not a professional scientist, but shouldn't the spirit of science be curiosity and exploration at all times, not shooting down a new idea as soon as you hear it? If such an attitude were present in every person, science would not progress at all. I'm not that long a veteran here, but I think at HN we are more interested in having our minds and ears open and feeling we can comfortably share and discuss articles that make us think, than fostering an attitude like this. I mean this with respect, whoever you are.

carbocation 7y ago
I think that science works best if we marry two mindsets: the joy of seeing something novel, and the suspicion of seeing something too good to be true. They don’t have to be present in equal measure for every article, and while I wouldn’t word it the same way as the parent, I appreciate the healthy skepticism on this topic.
- earthboundkid 7y ago
  Yes: a good reasoner is charitable and critical. You need both.
glenstein 7y ago
That's great for a classroom setting, or in the lab, or wherever people are forming hypothesis. But in articles communicating research, accuracy matters. You can believe in the value of creative thinking and also want article that do a good job describing research.
glofish 7y ago
This is about junk science - that is the true danger and bottleneck to science - that reward for making unsubstantiated but grandiose claims. These do far more damage than potentially unfair criticism. I am a scientist by profession and I have come to believe that the majority of work in this field is wasted because people chase that 5-minute fame. Once you are in the field you can smell the stink a mile away. It always sounds the same: "A second genetic code discovered", "Touch reflected in the DNA", "Next cure for cancer", "Scientists can edit now genes at high fidelity with CRISPR" all pure bullshit.

carbocation 7y ago

I think that science works best if we marry two mindsets: the joy of seeing something novel, and the suspicion of seeing something too good to be true. They don’t have to be present in equal measure for every article, and while I wouldn’t word it the same way as the parent, I appreciate the healthy skepticism on this topic.

earthboundkid 7y ago
Yes: a good reasoner is charitable and critical. You need both.

glenstein 7y ago

That's great for a classroom setting, or in the lab, or wherever people are forming hypothesis. But in articles communicating research, accuracy matters. You can believe in the value of creative thinking and also want article that do a good job describing research.

glofish 7y ago

This is about junk science - that is the true danger and bottleneck to science - that reward for making unsubstantiated but grandiose claims. These do far more damage than potentially unfair criticism. I am a scientist by profession and I have come to believe that the majority of work in this field is wasted because people chase that 5-minute fame. Once you are in the field you can smell the stink a mile away. It always sounds the same: "A second genetic code discovered", "Touch reflected in the DNA", "Next cure for cancer", "Scientists can edit now genes at high fidelity with CRISPR" all pure bullshit.