3 ms·

Yes it's said a lot by non-scientist commentators on internet forums, frequently about 5 seconds before they push whatever bizzare conspiracy theory they've mad

by XorNot 4y ago

Yes it's said a lot by non-scientist commentators on internet forums, frequently about 5 seconds before they push whatever bizzare conspiracy theory they've made their pet cause. And there it is right in this post.

tsimionescu 4y ago
It was said by Max Planck (well, not this exact quote, but the spirit is entirely there), not exactly a non-scientist commenting on an internet forum. Also, the controversy over the amyloid hypothesis is real. Here [0] is a paper showing arguments for and against with 268 citations. Here [1] is a more journalistic article in Nature. While this is still up in the air, it's nby no means a "conspiracy theory" to suggest that it's possibly a 25-year wild goose chase, or close to it. I would love to be wrong about this, but I suppose time will tell. [0] https://actaneurocomms.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40478-014-0135-5 https://actaneurocomms.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s4... [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05719-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05719-4
- XorNot 4y ago
  A better qualified person saying something doesn't make you qualified to repeat it.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    It's not like it's some subtle mathematical conjecture that laymen can't possibly comprehend. It's a social comment by a well known researcher that has a good chance of being a fact of the scientific community today just as much as then. If you believe things have changed, just say so, and move the conversation on. If you don't think it's a fruitful conversation, don't participate. I specifically replied to someone claiming that new minds re-thinking the foundations of a field couldn't possibly be a good idea, and I did so with a relevant quote from one of the new minds that completely re-wrote the foundations of their field. I believe this was a constructive observation moving the conversation.

by XorNot 4y ago

tsimionescu 4y ago

It was said by Max Planck (well, not this exact quote, but the spirit is entirely there), not exactly a non-scientist commenting on an internet forum. Also, the controversy over the amyloid hypothesis is real. Here [0] is a paper showing arguments for and against with 268 citations. Here [1] is a more journalistic article in Nature. While this is still up in the air, it's nby no means a "conspiracy theory" to suggest that it's possibly a 25-year wild goose chase, or close to it. I would love to be wrong about this, but I suppose time will tell. [0] https://actaneurocomms.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40478-014-0135-5 https://actaneurocomms.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s4... [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05719-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05719-4

XorNot 4y ago
A better qualified person saying something doesn't make you qualified to repeat it.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  It's not like it's some subtle mathematical conjecture that laymen can't possibly comprehend. It's a social comment by a well known researcher that has a good chance of being a fact of the scientific community today just as much as then. If you believe things have changed, just say so, and move the conversation on. If you don't think it's a fruitful conversation, don't participate. I specifically replied to someone claiming that new minds re-thinking the foundations of a field couldn't possibly be a good idea, and I did so with a relevant quote from one of the new minds that completely re-wrote the foundations of their field. I believe this was a constructive observation moving the conversation.