4 ms·

I take no position on crop circles, but, to be fair, discounting someone because they make their living studying something is not a reasonable thing to do. For

I take no position on crop circles, but, to be fair, discounting someone because they make their living studying something is not a reasonable thing to do. For example "Remember, this climate scientist gets lots of funding because people think there is a climate problem coming."

ehsankia 4y ago
There's a difference between thousands of climate scientists collecting, analyzing and sharing data, vs one author writing a "fact" that is hard to verify. The post above claims some of these appeared overnight or even within hours. That's a cool claim that adds a lot of credibility to this being supernatural, but how can we verify such a fact? Do we have to take the word of this one person as a fact? A book written by an author is not science. The comparison to climate scientist is ridiculous.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  I don't think I did compare crop circles to climate science. I pointed out that the pattern of reasoning "Because X has an interest in Y we cannot trust X" applies equally well if X and Y are "fringe weirdo" and "crop circles" or if X and Y are "scientist" and "climate change". The fact that X studies Y, and has financial interests in it, does not mean that it is reasonable to discount X.
  - ehsankia 4y ago
    Right, but my point is, financial interest for thousands of scientists is different from financial interest of a book author. A book and a peer-reviewed research paper are not the same. While not perfect, there are far more safeguards around money corrupting science than for a book.
- interstice 4y ago
  Quite often in the news with these stories someone is quoted in the article, would it be that hard to track them down and ask a question or two?
swatcoder 4y ago
It’s not only reasonable, but responsible, to understand where information is coming from and use that to modulate what trust you put into that information. In the case of self-publishing by an author with no familiar affiliations, one would probably want to treat the information you receive as a single attestation that may need further validation (if its truth is important to you). Once you’re more familiar with the author or recognize other trusted parties who have invested their own trust in them, you may treat it differently. It’s no different than a random podcast or blog. You don’t just blindly trust someone because they talk about the same thing all the time, do you? I should hope you look at a variety of trust signals and validate what you hear in proportion to the strength of those signals.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  This is not responding to the point. It's fine to know where your information is coming from and what biases might motivate that information. It's not fine to imply that because someone studies a topic they are necessarily untrustworthy on that topic - which is how I read your earlier comment. If you use the "I can't trust X because he studies on this" line of thinking then anything outside of the mainstream will be hard to take seriously. Amateurs advocating weird idea X won't be taken seriously because their advocacy will be amateur. Experts will be dismissed because they have a career interest in X.
  - swatcoder 4y ago
    Huh. That’s interesting that you standing by that reading of my original comment. I assumed you just misread it and so tried to respond constructively regardless. It’s certainly not the intent of what I wrote, nor something that I would even take credit for saying generally. I don’t really even see it there now, but I guess that’s the nature of reading one’s own writing. It’s easy to read it the way you meant, and can be hard to see all the different angles others might take on it.
    - ALittleLight 4y ago
      You wrote that the author is "trying to make a living" off of things like crop circles and that this fact suggests the author "could be more motivated by making sales" than honest inquiry. I'm surprised you had another meaning in mind apart from trying to discredit the author for the subject of his study.

ehsankia 4y ago

There's a difference between thousands of climate scientists collecting, analyzing and sharing data, vs one author writing a "fact" that is hard to verify. The post above claims some of these appeared overnight or even within hours. That's a cool claim that adds a lot of credibility to this being supernatural, but how can we verify such a fact? Do we have to take the word of this one person as a fact? A book written by an author is not science. The comparison to climate scientist is ridiculous.

ALittleLight 4y ago
I don't think I did compare crop circles to climate science. I pointed out that the pattern of reasoning "Because X has an interest in Y we cannot trust X" applies equally well if X and Y are "fringe weirdo" and "crop circles" or if X and Y are "scientist" and "climate change". The fact that X studies Y, and has financial interests in it, does not mean that it is reasonable to discount X.
- ehsankia 4y ago
  Right, but my point is, financial interest for thousands of scientists is different from financial interest of a book author. A book and a peer-reviewed research paper are not the same. While not perfect, there are far more safeguards around money corrupting science than for a book.
interstice 4y ago
Quite often in the news with these stories someone is quoted in the article, would it be that hard to track them down and ask a question or two?

swatcoder 4y ago

It’s not only reasonable, but responsible, to understand where information is coming from and use that to modulate what trust you put into that information. In the case of self-publishing by an author with no familiar affiliations, one would probably want to treat the information you receive as a single attestation that may need further validation (if its truth is important to you). Once you’re more familiar with the author or recognize other trusted parties who have invested their own trust in them, you may treat it differently. It’s no different than a random podcast or blog. You don’t just blindly trust someone because they talk about the same thing all the time, do you? I should hope you look at a variety of trust signals and validate what you hear in proportion to the strength of those signals.

ALittleLight 4y ago
This is not responding to the point. It's fine to know where your information is coming from and what biases might motivate that information. It's not fine to imply that because someone studies a topic they are necessarily untrustworthy on that topic - which is how I read your earlier comment. If you use the "I can't trust X because he studies on this" line of thinking then anything outside of the mainstream will be hard to take seriously. Amateurs advocating weird idea X won't be taken seriously because their advocacy will be amateur. Experts will be dismissed because they have a career interest in X.
- swatcoder 4y ago
  Huh. That’s interesting that you standing by that reading of my original comment. I assumed you just misread it and so tried to respond constructively regardless. It’s certainly not the intent of what I wrote, nor something that I would even take credit for saying generally. I don’t really even see it there now, but I guess that’s the nature of reading one’s own writing. It’s easy to read it the way you meant, and can be hard to see all the different angles others might take on it.
  - ALittleLight 4y ago
    You wrote that the author is "trying to make a living" off of things like crop circles and that this fact suggests the author "could be more motivated by making sales" than honest inquiry. I'm surprised you had another meaning in mind apart from trying to discredit the author for the subject of his study.