4 ms·

Have you considered researching the subject matter yourself? The parent articulated that this is psuedoscience, preached by a man who has advocated self-servin

Have you considered researching the subject matter yourself? The parent articulated that this is psuedoscience, preached by a man who has advocated self-serving psuedoscience before.

danpalmer 6y ago
I have, in fact that's really why I'm here commenting about this. I find I learn best when good science communicators explain a topic at or just beyond my level, with the help to raise my understand, rather than when poor communicators point to a bunch of papers targeted at theoretical physicists and say "go read the background". I suspect I'm not alone on this. Again, as I've said in other comments, just pointing at him and saying he's a fraud isn't useful in explaining why. I think the scientific discourse deserves better than that.
- hitekker 6y ago
  "Just asking questions" and then rejecting a community's answers seems like a fruitless strategy for learning. It is also uncomfortably close to the tactics of creationists, antivaxxers, and other conspiracy theorists.
  - danpalmer 6y ago
    I don't think I am rejecting the community's answer, I'm encouraging the community to be better at communicating their answer, rather than brushing off questions from lay-people with impenetrable answers. I'm very keen to have things explained at my level, because I get the "crackpot" feeling from Wolfram, I just don't know enough to understand why he's wrong. I've done science communication myself, I helped run a science festival, I know many people who still do it and are very good at it. I know how important it is to communicate well and how much impact it can have! I've even seen good science communication turn creationists and antivaxxers. I must admit I had seen the parallels while writing these things, but I've also seen people who unfortunately do believe these things turned away from mainstream science because they aren't yet at a level of understanding that the community mandates they operate at. Unfortunately for the mainstream scientific community there's often a disdain for communication like this. The fact that Wolfram is relatively good at it makes the whole situation more difficult.

Have you considered researching the subject matter yourself? The parent articulated that this is psuedoscience, preached by a man who has advocated self-serving psuedoscience before.

danpalmer 6y ago

I have, in fact that's really why I'm here commenting about this. I find I learn best when good science communicators explain a topic at or just beyond my level, with the help to raise my understand, rather than when poor communicators point to a bunch of papers targeted at theoretical physicists and say "go read the background". I suspect I'm not alone on this. Again, as I've said in other comments, just pointing at him and saying he's a fraud isn't useful in explaining why. I think the scientific discourse deserves better than that.

hitekker 6y ago
"Just asking questions" and then rejecting a community's answers seems like a fruitless strategy for learning. It is also uncomfortably close to the tactics of creationists, antivaxxers, and other conspiracy theorists.
- danpalmer 6y ago
  I don't think I am rejecting the community's answer, I'm encouraging the community to be better at communicating their answer, rather than brushing off questions from lay-people with impenetrable answers. I'm very keen to have things explained at my level, because I get the "crackpot" feeling from Wolfram, I just don't know enough to understand why he's wrong. I've done science communication myself, I helped run a science festival, I know many people who still do it and are very good at it. I know how important it is to communicate well and how much impact it can have! I've even seen good science communication turn creationists and antivaxxers. I must admit I had seen the parallels while writing these things, but I've also seen people who unfortunately do believe these things turned away from mainstream science because they aren't yet at a level of understanding that the community mandates they operate at. Unfortunately for the mainstream scientific community there's often a disdain for communication like this. The fact that Wolfram is relatively good at it makes the whole situation more difficult.