3 ms·
Kind of a recently I had a friend get published in Nature, have her work featured on the BBC, and inevitably that was posted here to HN. The work was actually r
by idrios 5y ago
Kind of a recently I had a friend get published in Nature, have her work featured on the BBC, and inevitably that was posted here to HN. The work was actually revolutionary, something that in college I had been taught was impossible, she had made closer to being possible.
There were basically 2 types of comments on HN: "Don't get your hopes up, they only got this to work on mice" and "is it ethical to do this kind of research in mice". Valid comments sure, but these are equally valid for every single research endeavor performed on any animal model, and no discussion was given to the technology that had been discovered/invented that could save countless lives for the rest of human history.
Since then, it's been harder for me to take criticism here very seriously.
- drBonkers 5y agoThat's why a lot of people here think today's Science™ is a joke. Peer-review is not a substitute for replication.
- joelbondurant3 5y ago
- svnt 5y agoIt’s easy for academics to bound a box and say something is impossible. And often no better way to get people to exert effort trying to do it. None of those boxes are bounded anywhere but in individual or collective understanding.
- tome 5y ago> Since then, it's been harder for me to take criticism here very seriously. It's the HN version of Gell-Mann Amnesia. Perhaps it should be called idrios Amnesia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnesiaEffect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnes...
- astrange 5y agoThe HN term for it (invented by pg) is "mid-brow dismissal" - when you reply to an article with something that applies to the general class of articles, but isn't a problem for the specific article because they knew that too, because of course they did.