5 ms·

I would take him more seriously if he didn't want to sell a book.

by mseepgood 6y ago

Cthulhu_ 6y ago
Yup. A book is not a scientific paper. It can be debunked, but it doesn't really matter because it'll sell anyway.
- AnHonestComment 6y ago
  That’s different than scientific papers how...?
- matthewdgreen 6y ago
  It absolutely can be debunked, in just about the same way as a scientific paper. That is, people can write other papers and books tearing it to shreds. What people don’t like is that books tend to reach a broader audience and so that audience may not read the subsequent follow-up work debunking it. I’m torn on this because bringing science to a broader audience is generally a praiseworthy thing. (I would not have entered a scientific career but for some great science books.)
  - crocal 6y ago
    There is a difference between vulgarisation of science, and making money out of sensational unproven claims pretending it’s science. This is my moral compass in that matter.
    - wegs 6y ago
      Scientific papers aren't for money, but they are for faculty positions and tenure. They suffer from much of the same grandstanding and outright fabrication as books do. We're living in a post-truth era, and it's a problem we need to solve. Where I'd like to land isn't: "Harvard astronomer gets bullied by peers" or "Harvard astronomer makes millions of dollars from half-baked theory" but "Harvard astronomer presents half-baked theory, we have a serious conversation about it, and we treat it as a potential hypothesis." I like quirky hypotheses, and I've found I've learned a lot investigating them.
      - XorNot 6y ago
        This is not a problem we need to solve. "I'm being bullied!" claims are what everyone immediately says when their ideas aren't picked up by everyone else and then they decide to step right around the peer review process for their field.
        matthewdgreen 6y ago
        I think Loeb's meta-argument is that the peer-review process is tilted towards discounting arguments that include the possibility of extraterrestrial life. You can't really have discussions about how the peer-review process should work within the peer-review process. And moreover, since society at large is providing the resources for our science, they should have some visibility and input into how those resources are spent. I say this as a scientist who generally thinks (at least my field's) peer review works pretty well, so to be clear I'm not saying this to discount expert opinion. You can feel free to disagree with Loeb's points, but I dislike the characterization that some part of this process is "invalid" (bullying) or that communicating with the public is similarly invalid because it "steps around peer review". Even your comments disagreeing with Loeb's approach are part of the process by which science and society make progress, I just happen to disagree with them in this case.
        XorNot 6y ago
        Except the only reason he wants to have a meta-argument is because otherwise the main argument has no credibility. The only reason it exists is because the ET argument is weak. He has to discuss the peer-review process and call it unfair, because otherwise he'd have the problem that the most qualified people to analyze his arguments are all saying the same thing: that it's unconvincing.
        matthewdgreen 6y ago
        I've read some of the criticisms, and I'm not sure that I disagree with you. But let's be clear what "unconvincing" means: it means that there is a single object and hence very little data, and what data we have isn't impossible to explain with non-ET reasoning. There's definitely some weird and unexplained stuff here, and if the result of convincing society "hey there's an outside chance this is a non-natural object and we should make plans to look for and investigate future such objects" is that society ever-so-incrementally does that, we'll end up with more data than we'd have otherwise.
    - matthewdgreen 6y ago
      So if he gave the book away for free it would be fine, all things being equal?
      - ethbr0 6y ago
        I think either giving the book away for free (thus removing any profit motive to pump it) or constantly updating the book to cite responses (thus addressing the tendency of book readers not to perform their own literature surveys) would both be fair.
- BrandoElFollito 6y ago
  A scientific paper is not a magical thing either. There have been absurdly bad papers published in the "best" journals (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2455231/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2455231/ - on the memory of water by Benaventiste - the graal of homeopaths) and then quietly retracted. Unfortunately the information is now in the news and it is much more attractive that the debunking. Then you have the poor quality of peer-review in many journals (the more one moves aways from hard science, the worse it gets). I had the opportunity to review a PhD thesis in a prestigious university in Europe (in biology) and the statistical part was disheartening. It was so bad that I have now concerns about everything biology :) Finally the publish or die approach to contemporary science does not help to have quality and honesty in papers. There were recent cases in South Korea. I do not have a solution, though. Probably not linking grants and career to publications would help.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    A scientific paper is just a glorified blogpost, in a subculture with peculiar rituals around writing blogposts. Still, a scientific paper is not something you intend to make heaploads of money off, but a pop-sci book absolutely is - which makes the whole thing suspect.

I would take him more seriously if he didn't want to sell a book.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

Yup. A book is not a scientific paper. It can be debunked, but it doesn't really matter because it'll sell anyway.

AnHonestComment 6y ago
That’s different than scientific papers how...?
matthewdgreen 6y ago
It absolutely can be debunked, in just about the same way as a scientific paper. That is, people can write other papers and books tearing it to shreds. What people don’t like is that books tend to reach a broader audience and so that audience may not read the subsequent follow-up work debunking it. I’m torn on this because bringing science to a broader audience is generally a praiseworthy thing. (I would not have entered a scientific career but for some great science books.)
- crocal 6y ago
  There is a difference between vulgarisation of science, and making money out of sensational unproven claims pretending it’s science. This is my moral compass in that matter.
  - wegs 6y ago
    Scientific papers aren't for money, but they are for faculty positions and tenure. They suffer from much of the same grandstanding and outright fabrication as books do. We're living in a post-truth era, and it's a problem we need to solve. Where I'd like to land isn't: "Harvard astronomer gets bullied by peers" or "Harvard astronomer makes millions of dollars from half-baked theory" but "Harvard astronomer presents half-baked theory, we have a serious conversation about it, and we treat it as a potential hypothesis." I like quirky hypotheses, and I've found I've learned a lot investigating them.
    - XorNot 6y ago
      This is not a problem we need to solve. "I'm being bullied!" claims are what everyone immediately says when their ideas aren't picked up by everyone else and then they decide to step right around the peer review process for their field.
      - matthewdgreen 6y ago
        I think Loeb's meta-argument is that the peer-review process is tilted towards discounting arguments that include the possibility of extraterrestrial life. You can't really have discussions about how the peer-review process should work within the peer-review process. And moreover, since society at large is providing the resources for our science, they should have some visibility and input into how those resources are spent. I say this as a scientist who generally thinks (at least my field's) peer review works pretty well, so to be clear I'm not saying this to discount expert opinion. You can feel free to disagree with Loeb's points, but I dislike the characterization that some part of this process is "invalid" (bullying) or that communicating with the public is similarly invalid because it "steps around peer review". Even your comments disagreeing with Loeb's approach are part of the process by which science and society make progress, I just happen to disagree with them in this case.
        XorNot 6y ago
        Except the only reason he wants to have a meta-argument is because otherwise the main argument has no credibility. The only reason it exists is because the ET argument is weak. He has to discuss the peer-review process and call it unfair, because otherwise he'd have the problem that the most qualified people to analyze his arguments are all saying the same thing: that it's unconvincing.
        matthewdgreen 6y ago
        I've read some of the criticisms, and I'm not sure that I disagree with you. But let's be clear what "unconvincing" means: it means that there is a single object and hence very little data, and what data we have isn't impossible to explain with non-ET reasoning. There's definitely some weird and unexplained stuff here, and if the result of convincing society "hey there's an outside chance this is a non-natural object and we should make plans to look for and investigate future such objects" is that society ever-so-incrementally does that, we'll end up with more data than we'd have otherwise.
  - matthewdgreen 6y ago
    So if he gave the book away for free it would be fine, all things being equal?
    - ethbr0 6y ago
      I think either giving the book away for free (thus removing any profit motive to pump it) or constantly updating the book to cite responses (thus addressing the tendency of book readers not to perform their own literature surveys) would both be fair.
BrandoElFollito 6y ago
A scientific paper is not a magical thing either. There have been absurdly bad papers published in the "best" journals (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2455231/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2455231/ - on the memory of water by Benaventiste - the graal of homeopaths) and then quietly retracted. Unfortunately the information is now in the news and it is much more attractive that the debunking. Then you have the poor quality of peer-review in many journals (the more one moves aways from hard science, the worse it gets). I had the opportunity to review a PhD thesis in a prestigious university in Europe (in biology) and the statistical part was disheartening. It was so bad that I have now concerns about everything biology :) Finally the publish or die approach to contemporary science does not help to have quality and honesty in papers. There were recent cases in South Korea. I do not have a solution, though. Probably not linking grants and career to publications would help.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  A scientific paper is just a glorified blogpost, in a subculture with peculiar rituals around writing blogposts. Still, a scientific paper is not something you intend to make heaploads of money off, but a pop-sci book absolutely is - which makes the whole thing suspect.