4 ms·

I understand that you consider this a bad thing, but why? Why shouldn't a person who believes they discovered some phenomenon name it, write books and give tal

by yreg 4y ago

I understand that you consider this a bad thing, but why? Why shouldn't a person who believes they discovered some phenomenon name it, write books and give talks on it?

dotancohen 4y ago
Exactly. Does anyone discount Newtonian physics because the author published Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica?
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica "Registered trade mark"?!
rendaw 4y ago
Because it creates a conflict of interest, where their income depends on the continued significance and validity of their research results. And when a researcher this fanatically believes in their own research, were they properly free of biases going into the research? Is writing the book the consequence of amazing research results, or did they plan to write the book from the start (maybe seeing it as the only way to make investment into the research worthwhile)?
- yreg 4y ago
  The conflict of interest is always there since almost any scientist wants to discover something and be right. That doesn't mean everyone does bad science, but it's not possible to be unbiased. I'd say the motivation to name a phenomenon and make a mark in the science history might be much higher and more widespread then to sell a book. Science cannot depend on scientists being unbiased about their work. It has to depend on verification, reproduction of experiments, meta analysis and so on.
  - svnt 4y ago
    Scientists are likely to be assessed on the basis of their general credibility, not the standing of a single paper. Maintaining general credibility typically requires not overstating your claims, especially when dealing with sparse data. Publishing a single paper and then making money on promoting lifestyle changes based on your discovery is not science, and would be (I would say correctly) side-eyed by many scientists. The author’s credibility is now inexorably bound up with a single statement that has been reduced to marketing.
rtpg 4y ago
There's an incentive for the work to be right, explainable and having transposable advice. A common thread I see in discussions about age and about weight gain is about how a lot of it is determined by genetics. If you are trying to sell a diet book, are you going to dig into the genetics part a lot? Probably not![0] Flavors of this exist in all domains, of course, and it's not that the causal relation is "writing a book on the effect makes the research bad". But when you show up with a problem and the solution in one package, there is a question about whether this is research or whether this is a sales pitch (likely something in between). [0]: not taking a position on the actual veracity of the genetics back-and-forth.

by yreg 4y ago

I understand that you consider this a bad thing, but why? Why shouldn't a person who believes they discovered some phenomenon name it, write books and give talks on it?

dotancohen 4y ago

Exactly. Does anyone discount Newtonian physics because the author published Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica?

mdp2021 4y ago
> Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica "Registered trade mark"?!

rendaw 4y ago

Because it creates a conflict of interest, where their income depends on the continued significance and validity of their research results. And when a researcher this fanatically believes in their own research, were they properly free of biases going into the research? Is writing the book the consequence of amazing research results, or did they plan to write the book from the start (maybe seeing it as the only way to make investment into the research worthwhile)?

yreg 4y ago
The conflict of interest is always there since almost any scientist wants to discover something and be right. That doesn't mean everyone does bad science, but it's not possible to be unbiased. I'd say the motivation to name a phenomenon and make a mark in the science history might be much higher and more widespread then to sell a book. Science cannot depend on scientists being unbiased about their work. It has to depend on verification, reproduction of experiments, meta analysis and so on.
- svnt 4y ago
  Scientists are likely to be assessed on the basis of their general credibility, not the standing of a single paper. Maintaining general credibility typically requires not overstating your claims, especially when dealing with sparse data. Publishing a single paper and then making money on promoting lifestyle changes based on your discovery is not science, and would be (I would say correctly) side-eyed by many scientists. The author’s credibility is now inexorably bound up with a single statement that has been reduced to marketing.

rtpg 4y ago

There's an incentive for the work to be right, explainable and having transposable advice. A common thread I see in discussions about age and about weight gain is about how a lot of it is determined by genetics. If you are trying to sell a diet book, are you going to dig into the genetics part a lot? Probably not![0] Flavors of this exist in all domains, of course, and it's not that the causal relation is "writing a book on the effect makes the research bad". But when you show up with a problem and the solution in one package, there is a question about whether this is research or whether this is a sales pitch (likely something in between). [0]: not taking a position on the actual veracity of the genetics back-and-forth.