3 ms·
Right. 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”.
by jwilber 5y ago
Right.
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.