3 ms·
> being kind when delivering pointed critiques helps a difficult pill go down While I am sympathetic to this, I think it fails to recognize a very important th
by pdonis 5y ago
> being kind when delivering pointed critiques helps a difficult pill go down
While I am sympathetic to this, I think it fails to recognize a very important thing that we expect, or at least should expect, from people who claim to be doing science: that every scientist is responsible for sanity checking their own work before making any claims based on it. As Richard Feynman said, your first duty as a scientist is to not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool.
That means every scientist needs to be an expert in whatever fields are relevant to the work they're doing. If a scientist is going to make claims based on some purported correspondence between human psychology and fluid dynamics, they need to be an expert, not just in human psychology, but also in fluid dynamics; and if they're not, they need to not make the claims, no matter how enthusiastic they are about them. And the scientists who published the claims that Nick and his colleagues debunked were not experts in fluid dynamics, and knew it, yet they chose to publish anyway.
And that kind of thing, if science as an institution is going to be trustworthy, cannot be handled by kind words when delivering pointed critiques. It has to be labeled as what it is: not just being mistaken, but being scientifically dishonest, by making claims that you do not have the expertise to make. In a sane world, scientists who did that would be stripped of the label "scientist", the same way we disbar dishonest lawyers or revoke the medical licenses of dishonest doctors. At the very least, it justifies language that does not include kind words, but the opposite.
I have no problem with using kind words when calling out a scientist who is just mistaken. But I don't think kind words are called for when a scientist knowingly publishes claims that they don't have the expertise to evaluate for themselves.
- nopenopenopeno 5y agoI thought I was going insane before reading your comment. This world is such a nightmare to live in. Honestly, the idea that this guy even discovered something is just as ridiculous as the fact that the ruse had gone on for as long as it did. The only real story here is about the work that wasn’t done to begin with.
- karaterobot 5y ago> ... I don't think kind words are called for when a scientist knowingly publishes claims that they don't have the expertise to evaluate for themselves. But, until you can establish beyond all reasonable doubt that that is what happened, you should be polite because there is a chance you are the one who is wrong. Then, after you have established it beyond reasonable doubt, you should be polite because trying to destroy someone will only make them dig in and fight you til the bitter end. And, because it's the right thing to do. You can be kind and tenacious, and forceful, and not take no for an answer. I think that's what the original commenter was implying.
- pdonis 5y ago> until you can establish beyond all reasonable doubt that that is what happened In the case under discussion, the key scientist involved (Frederickson) admitted that she wasn't an expert in fluid dynamics. That is sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that yes, what I said happened is what happened. > You can be kind and tenacious, and forceful, and not take no for an answer. I'm not sure that "kind" is consistent with all of those other things, in the situation under discussion. But maybe we have different interpretations of what is "kind".
- groby_b 5y agoThis is an interesting stance to take on HN, of all places. "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." This extends to other places, too. On a more practical level, not being kind doesn't buy you anything. (I want to be clear here that "kindness" doesn't mean "freedom from consequences". Of course there should be consequences. But there's no need to be a jerk about administering them - it achieves nothing)
- eru 5y agoTo be honest, some people get an emotional satisfaction out of being unkind. As a matter of practical strategy, being kind is better for all the reasons you suggest. See also Slate Star Codex, eg https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-community-and-civilization/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-c... or https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/02/be-nice-at-least-until-you-can-coordinate-meanness/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/02/be-nice-at-least-until...
- zozbot234 5y agoBasic civility, respect and decorum go a lot further than mere "kindness" IME. The latter I can't even properly define in the context of a computer-mediated debate. I suppose it's largely a way of saying "don't personally attack other users, or you'll get booted" which ought to be plain common sense.
- panta 5y agoAs I see it, being kind means being empathetic, asking ourselves how the other person is going to feel when receiving our communication, and therefore adjusting in a way to avoid emotional damage. I believe this is especially important when being critical. The goal of a criticism should be to help the other/the community/the discourse grow, keeping our ego out of the equation.
- microjim 5y ago