2 ms·
> I doubt you have enough knowledge about sciences and the process of learning in general to discuss this matter, let alone to make bold claims on other people'
by midev 5y ago
> I doubt you have enough knowledge about sciences and the process of learning in general to discuss this matter, let alone to make bold claims on other people's ability to reason about findings of various papers.
That's fine. You can have your opinions on whatever you want. I still don't think you can read papers from most fields :shrug:.
> It's fun to watch how quickly you switched from the original "unless you're an expert in a field" to "if you are not an expert or knowledgable about a topic", and yet you are stil unable to admit that you said a silly thing in the first place.
I don't choose my words that carefully, so this isn't the point you think it is. I said knowledgable as some wiggle room. Don't read too much into it.
> Also, what you are saying has never been the case in scientific circles. It's been the case in the circles around them, among the people with less intelegence yet unjustified ambition: "expert" is the same phony concept as "prestige" - a token of a social climber who is seeking a stamp of committee approval, and who couldn't care less about the actual knowledge in the field and the pursuit of truth.
This is an insecurity you have with yourself, creating some weird definition of expert. Like I said, people hate to hear that their opinions don't matter.
- ghostwriter 5y ago> That's fine. You can have your opinions on whatever you want. I still don't think you can read papers from most fields :shrug:. That wasn't an argument in your original comment. You specifically said that people were not scientifically literate unless they were "experts". > I don't choose my words that carefully, so this isn't the point you think it is. One day you will discover that before you are able to make a point you need to learn to choose your words carefully first. Words, like science, have an exact meaning too. > I said knowledgable as some wiggle room. Don't read too much into it. Don't worry, I'm not taking you seriously yet, at least not until you define what precisely does "expert" mean. Nevertheless, it's fun to see how far you are willing to go with your comments without admitting your mistake. > This is an insecurity you have with yourself, creating some weird definition of expert. Like I said, people hate to hear that their opinions don't matter. Which insecurity? Please be specific about your words here too. And let's finally check your premises. What's your definition of an "expert"?
- midev 5y ago> One day you will discover that before you are able to make a point you need to learn to choose your words carefully first. Words, like science, have an exact meaning too. One day you will discover that comments on HN don't matter. Also words do not have exact meanings. I suspect you're not an expert in linguistics, are you? ;). I mean it's kinda funny that you got one of the basic tenants of lingustics wrong, in trying to argue that non-experts opinions matter, lol. > And let's finally check your premises. What's your definition of an "expert"? I don't find debating definitions to be interesting. It's just an arbitrary line, and you'll argue with whatever line I pick. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. You can fool yourself on social media. It fits in line with the anti-intellectualism of half the country, that think they can read a single study and then cock off about it.