5 ms·

Hi, I work in academia and disagree with the author’s take. My admittedly anecdotal experience doesn’t support that. The worst perception I can think of would

Hi, I work in academia and disagree with the author’s take. My admittedly anecdotal experience doesn’t support that. The worst perception I can think of would be a (likely older) PI wondering why you’re writing blog posts instead of papers. Blogs are generally seen favorably - they can be a friendly introduction to your work or act as a knowledge base/wiki for how-tos or popular tools. I know many professors who blog frequently and/or encourage trainees to have a personal website; a PI I work with now has a blog and encourages his members, particularly the junior ones, to contribute for the exposure; and I have multiple grad school friends who blog regularly - so far without negative consequence. Also, if you want to consider twitter “microblogging”, it only takes a few minutes of browsing scitwitter to debunk the idea that scientists don’t talk about their field online (even unprofessionally). It’s really the only thing they talk about.

rendall 6y ago
> Hi, I work in academia and disagree with the author’s take. There is a logical fallacy, and I don't recall its name, but it refers to rejecting an argument only because it does not confirm one's personal experience > a few minutes of browsing scitwitter to debunk the idea that scientists don’t talk about their field online (even unprofessionally) Perhaps these scientists' work is uncontroversial, or they are protected, or you are right and Scott is wrong. Spend some time with Slate Star Codex and the new blog, and you might become aware of counter examples which you would not become aware of by browsing Twitter
- njwi332 6y ago
  He alludes to an example in the article > none of us are safe - not the random grad student with a Twitter account making fun of bad science From that I assumed that the sort of people being referred to are those who are debunking or criticising work by already established scientists. I'm speculating here but I would guess it hurts their chances because those who do the hiring don't want to risk taking on someone who might criticise their science in future.
  - rendall 6y ago
    With some searching I found an example of a grad student being doxxed and harassed for criticizing a powerful professor, but in philosophy, not science. I wonder what incident Scott refers to, if any https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1147237025227034624?s=20 https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/114723702522703462...

rendall 6y ago

> Hi, I work in academia and disagree with the author’s take. There is a logical fallacy, and I don't recall its name, but it refers to rejecting an argument only because it does not confirm one's personal experience > a few minutes of browsing scitwitter to debunk the idea that scientists don’t talk about their field online (even unprofessionally) Perhaps these scientists' work is uncontroversial, or they are protected, or you are right and Scott is wrong. Spend some time with Slate Star Codex and the new blog, and you might become aware of counter examples which you would not become aware of by browsing Twitter

njwi332 6y ago
He alludes to an example in the article > none of us are safe - not the random grad student with a Twitter account making fun of bad science From that I assumed that the sort of people being referred to are those who are debunking or criticising work by already established scientists. I'm speculating here but I would guess it hurts their chances because those who do the hiring don't want to risk taking on someone who might criticise their science in future.
- rendall 6y ago
  With some searching I found an example of a grad student being doxxed and harassed for criticizing a powerful professor, but in philosophy, not science. I wonder what incident Scott refers to, if any https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1147237025227034624?s=20 https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/114723702522703462...