6 ms·

You accuse people of being too lazy, but as you pointed out, science does change because flaws in research do eventually get pointed out. In fact, there is an

You accuse people of being too lazy, but as you pointed out, science does change because flaws in research do eventually get pointed out. In fact, there is an entire profession devoted to making sure that they do get pointed out: scientists. The scientific establishment has plenty of flaws in its reasoning, but it is, by design, self correcting. I don't think it's laziness to allow people who have devoted their entire lives to work out fantastically complicated problems to do their work without polluting the debate with my generally uninformed opinion. That way, not only do they get to do their work, I can focus on doing mine.

Alex3917 15y ago
"science does change because flaws in research do eventually get pointed out." No argument there, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't wrong to begin with. "I don't think it's laziness to allow people who have devoted their entire lives to work out fantastically complicated problems to do their work without polluting the debate with my generally uninformed opinion." Of course you shouldn't express your opinion if you're uninformed. But you also shouldn't put science on a pedestal. Writing your own literature review might not be feasible for most people, but deciding which of two factions (if not both) is full of shit doesn't take a whole lot of talent.
- tel 15y ago
  Assuming, as the lay scientific rhetoric often positions, that one of the two sides is full of shit! In real scientific debate, the two sides are actually likely to be sharing an enormous amount of common ground and quibbling over extraordinarily specific details. The trick is that sometimes these specific details have an enormous impact (bistability). It doesn't suddenly mean that one side is full of shit just because the world might change dramatically depending on how that tiny detail changes.
- rauljara 15y ago
  If overturning established ideas is as easy for you as you seem to portray it, you should enter into a career in science. Scientists who can prove that existing paradigms are wrong, or incomplete, are treated as rock-stars, not pariahs. Virtually every scientific figure you have ever read about overturned some old false knowledge. However, the reason there aren't more rock-stars like that is because when you actually have to inject yourself into the debate and have your own ideas exposed to the same level of skepticism, you often find that your own conclusions are as flawed as the ones you are critiquing. Not saying science has all the answers. Not saying currently held beliefs won't be overturned. Not even saying that you might not be right about some of the things you are skeptical about. But I have seen a lot of people believe they know better about things of a scientific nature who have absolutely no idea about which they speak. As an outsider to think that something is easier than it is, and that you know more than you really know. It is not unreasonable to let the people whose life is devoted to the work, do their work. When you question smart people's life work, it is incredibly reasonable to apply some of the same skepticism you are applying to them to yourself.
  - Alex3917 15y ago
    "Scientists who can prove that existing paradigms are wrong, or incomplete, are treated as rock-stars, not pariahs." I think people like to tell themselves this, but rarely is it actually true. If that's how humans actually worked then Michael Moore would have been canonized as a saint for showing that the Iraq war was a mistake. At best the person who gets the credit is the person who used their clout to convince people that the old paradigm was wrong, not the person who actually did the analysis. And more commonly people begrudgingly accept the new model and no one gets credit, and even then they often don't accept the new model for dozens (or hundreds) of years after the evidence is in.
- bugsy 15y ago
  Why shouldn't people express their opinion if they are uninformed? Since the greatest experts in each field publish their best results with a less than 50% accuracy rate, it seems clear that uninformed people randomly guessing things can do better by flipping coins. Feynman found it useful to go with his gut feeling about something before he had reviewed any previous research in a field, and found this worked well for him. His IQ was 125 so he's just an ordinary guy with common sense.
  - syllogism 15y ago
    Feynman just an ordinary guy with common sense? If his IQ was measured to be 125, that tells us far more about the accuracy of the IQ measurement process than Feynman's intelligence. Feynman's extra-ordinariness is on clear display.

Alex3917 15y ago

"science does change because flaws in research do eventually get pointed out." No argument there, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't wrong to begin with. "I don't think it's laziness to allow people who have devoted their entire lives to work out fantastically complicated problems to do their work without polluting the debate with my generally uninformed opinion." Of course you shouldn't express your opinion if you're uninformed. But you also shouldn't put science on a pedestal. Writing your own literature review might not be feasible for most people, but deciding which of two factions (if not both) is full of shit doesn't take a whole lot of talent.

tel 15y ago
Assuming, as the lay scientific rhetoric often positions, that one of the two sides is full of shit! In real scientific debate, the two sides are actually likely to be sharing an enormous amount of common ground and quibbling over extraordinarily specific details. The trick is that sometimes these specific details have an enormous impact (bistability). It doesn't suddenly mean that one side is full of shit just because the world might change dramatically depending on how that tiny detail changes.
rauljara 15y ago
If overturning established ideas is as easy for you as you seem to portray it, you should enter into a career in science. Scientists who can prove that existing paradigms are wrong, or incomplete, are treated as rock-stars, not pariahs. Virtually every scientific figure you have ever read about overturned some old false knowledge. However, the reason there aren't more rock-stars like that is because when you actually have to inject yourself into the debate and have your own ideas exposed to the same level of skepticism, you often find that your own conclusions are as flawed as the ones you are critiquing. Not saying science has all the answers. Not saying currently held beliefs won't be overturned. Not even saying that you might not be right about some of the things you are skeptical about. But I have seen a lot of people believe they know better about things of a scientific nature who have absolutely no idea about which they speak. As an outsider to think that something is easier than it is, and that you know more than you really know. It is not unreasonable to let the people whose life is devoted to the work, do their work. When you question smart people's life work, it is incredibly reasonable to apply some of the same skepticism you are applying to them to yourself.
- Alex3917 15y ago
  "Scientists who can prove that existing paradigms are wrong, or incomplete, are treated as rock-stars, not pariahs." I think people like to tell themselves this, but rarely is it actually true. If that's how humans actually worked then Michael Moore would have been canonized as a saint for showing that the Iraq war was a mistake. At best the person who gets the credit is the person who used their clout to convince people that the old paradigm was wrong, not the person who actually did the analysis. And more commonly people begrudgingly accept the new model and no one gets credit, and even then they often don't accept the new model for dozens (or hundreds) of years after the evidence is in.
bugsy 15y ago
Why shouldn't people express their opinion if they are uninformed? Since the greatest experts in each field publish their best results with a less than 50% accuracy rate, it seems clear that uninformed people randomly guessing things can do better by flipping coins. Feynman found it useful to go with his gut feeling about something before he had reviewed any previous research in a field, and found this worked well for him. His IQ was 125 so he's just an ordinary guy with common sense.
- syllogism 15y ago
  Feynman just an ordinary guy with common sense? If his IQ was measured to be 125, that tells us far more about the accuracy of the IQ measurement process than Feynman's intelligence. Feynman's extra-ordinariness is on clear display.