4 ms·

Having read both this and the NYT Opinions Manjoo article, I found the argument in this article a bit weird. Seems to go like: - There was an Opinion column i

Having read both this and the NYT Opinions Manjoo article, I found the argument in this article a bit weird. Seems to go like: - There was an Opinion column in a newspaper, focused on a book review, that had a headline that was clickbait-y and slightly misleading (TRUE) - This opinion column (meanwhile recalling that opinion columns are effectively arguments-for-and-from-perspective) was not 'balanced' with opinions like mine; (TRUE) - It's frustrating that there is a book about this that does not mention my preferred explanation [n.b. I have bought but not yet read this book, so I cannot myself comment, but for the sake of argument, let's say, TRUE] - There are some other scientists who have also done excellent work in this field and they are not being mentioned and they may or may not have different opinions, however I will hereby insinuate that they share my view (possibly, TRUE? I don't know e.g. Jill Tarter's view; haven't had a chance to google around.) So, this article seems to say a bunch of plausible things, but none of which are terribly well-motivated or compelling. - Opinions columns are allowed to be cases for/against a view, and are not expected to both-sides any given issue; - The book itself _just is_ a principled, accessible, scientifically-informed argument for the position opposed by Scharf; it's not clear why Scharf needs to write an article apparently decrying both the book and the review of it --- as if the articulation of the position itself was somehow beyond the pale - Recalling that writers seldom get to pick their headlines, I still worry that the title of this piece (riffing on Sagan's _Demon Haunted World_) implicitly associates demons and aliens as equivalently fanciful. Now, they may well be, but given that *this is the question presently under consideration*, I cannot help but feel a question begged, or at least, prejudiced.

slowmovintarget 6y ago
Writing a "popular" book aimed at the general public that espouses a particular theory is often seen as an escalation outside of an expected social norm in scientific publishing. You're supposed to be a good little scientist, write your paper, get refereed, and hold out your hand for grant money like every one else. You ought not dare stir up the mob of public opinion. The general public shouldn't be paying attention to how science works. They might muck it up. Thank goodness for the likes of Carl Sagan, Neil Tyson, Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, Richard Feynman, and Sean Carroll. They've all displayed a love of science strong enough to want to share with any who'll listen, and the wisdom to know science is a big enough idea to withstand scrutiny.

slowmovintarget 6y ago

Writing a "popular" book aimed at the general public that espouses a particular theory is often seen as an escalation outside of an expected social norm in scientific publishing. You're supposed to be a good little scientist, write your paper, get refereed, and hold out your hand for grant money like every one else. You ought not dare stir up the mob of public opinion. The general public shouldn't be paying attention to how science works. They might muck it up. Thank goodness for the likes of Carl Sagan, Neil Tyson, Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, Richard Feynman, and Sean Carroll. They've all displayed a love of science strong enough to want to share with any who'll listen, and the wisdom to know science is a big enough idea to withstand scrutiny.