4 ms·
Depends on how you define standard.
by jwilber 5y ago
Depends on how you define standard.
- fastball 5y agoSure, you can define standard however you want and then the conversation is meaningless. But according to the standard definition of standard, which makes it synonymous with "average" or "norm", then my point very much stands.
- jwilber 5y agoRight. Well, in that case I disagree with your assertion that scientists who put out publications of average-in-that-field’s quality are “worse than useless”. Not how science works!
- fastball 5y agoYeahhhh, that's not what you said in your original comment at all. > if an individual is in question for taking non-standard stances in an academic field If you meant to say "low quality" then say that, but that is not what anyone takes to mean from "non-standard", as non-standard can equally mean exceptional if you are talking about quality.
- jwilber 5y agoI.e. it depends on how you define standard. But in this case I didn’t mean low-quality. It just turned out that’s how his work in that moment was judged by other experts in the field. Which is exactly why I brought it up, as I literally explained in my comment above - his history of non-standard ideas doesn’t have a great track record. I think that’s relevant. (But for some reason I’m here explaining it again.) Your point about less-than-useless (so harmful?) scientists is still absolutely ridiculous, as much scientific progress (and many scientific careers) comes from improving non-exceptional ideas in straightforward manners with expected results.