4 ms·

How would one go about establishing themselves as an academic authority on a topic or field which one believed was based on nothing real?

sigmoid10 4y ago
How would you know if something is "based on nothing real" if you haven't actively worked in and contributed to said field? I for example know very little about virology or immunology and I have never published anything in those fields. Would you listen to me discrediting covid researchers or mRNA-vaccines if I say I think they are based on nothing real?
- munch117 4y ago
  You are putting up a ridiculously high bar for expressing an opinion, where not even a research fellow in theoretical physics can pass. If you were a research fellow in virology or immunology, and you had read and understood the relevant papers, then I would listen to you, yes. That doesn't mean I would take what you said as the final word.
  - sigmoid10 4y ago
    >you had read and understood the relevant papers How would you know that if I hadn't published papers on the relevant topics and only published in adjacent, non-mainstream topics? And yes, the bar for string theory is high. Not every research fellow in theoretical physics would be qualified to comment here - quite the opposite actually. In the same way any honest theoretical plasma physicist will refuse to comment on quantum computing papers. Inside academia it is well known that you often can't even expect people to create qualified comments across neighbouring offices inside departments. Regardless, there are quite a few qualified people in this area. If someone with caliber like Susskind, Gross, 't Hooft, Witten or from the respected younger generation came out and said it's all a hoax, you can bet everyone would listen. And they have come out with specific critique, but you'll find it very different from the likes of Hossenfelder and it is usually not discussed in popsci literature. Noone in the field cares about people who haven't even shown they understand it, let alone contributed to it.
    - munch117 4y ago
      No one has said that anything is a hoax. Please tone it down. > How would you know that if I hadn't published papers on the relevant topics No, that not the question. You don't get to assume that people are incompetent until they've presented incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. You're the one making ad hominem arguments, the burden of proof is on you.
      - bandyaboot 4y ago
        > You don't get to assume that people are incompetent until they've presented incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Leaving aside the setting of ridiculously high bars for the moment, that level of evidence would be different depending on who is observing. A car mechanic is going to be able to spot clear evidence of incompetence in another car mechanic long before it’s apparent to a layperson observer.
      - sigmoid10 4y ago
        >No one has said that anything is a hoax What? Have you even read OP's article? A direct quote from the article has her saying this physics research is "religion masquerading as science under the guise of mathematics." If that's not insinuating a hoax I then don't know what is.
        hnfong 4y ago
        I'm not religious myself, but by that statement you're insinuating that religions in general are hoaxes. IMHO religions are just religions. As much as you can't scientifically prove the existence of god, you can't disprove it either. It's not necessarily a hoax.

sigmoid10 4y ago

How would you know if something is "based on nothing real" if you haven't actively worked in and contributed to said field? I for example know very little about virology or immunology and I have never published anything in those fields. Would you listen to me discrediting covid researchers or mRNA-vaccines if I say I think they are based on nothing real?

munch117 4y ago
You are putting up a ridiculously high bar for expressing an opinion, where not even a research fellow in theoretical physics can pass. If you were a research fellow in virology or immunology, and you had read and understood the relevant papers, then I would listen to you, yes. That doesn't mean I would take what you said as the final word.
- sigmoid10 4y ago
  >you had read and understood the relevant papers How would you know that if I hadn't published papers on the relevant topics and only published in adjacent, non-mainstream topics? And yes, the bar for string theory is high. Not every research fellow in theoretical physics would be qualified to comment here - quite the opposite actually. In the same way any honest theoretical plasma physicist will refuse to comment on quantum computing papers. Inside academia it is well known that you often can't even expect people to create qualified comments across neighbouring offices inside departments. Regardless, there are quite a few qualified people in this area. If someone with caliber like Susskind, Gross, 't Hooft, Witten or from the respected younger generation came out and said it's all a hoax, you can bet everyone would listen. And they have come out with specific critique, but you'll find it very different from the likes of Hossenfelder and it is usually not discussed in popsci literature. Noone in the field cares about people who haven't even shown they understand it, let alone contributed to it.
  - munch117 4y ago
    No one has said that anything is a hoax. Please tone it down. > How would you know that if I hadn't published papers on the relevant topics No, that not the question. You don't get to assume that people are incompetent until they've presented incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. You're the one making ad hominem arguments, the burden of proof is on you.
    - bandyaboot 4y ago
      > You don't get to assume that people are incompetent until they've presented incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Leaving aside the setting of ridiculously high bars for the moment, that level of evidence would be different depending on who is observing. A car mechanic is going to be able to spot clear evidence of incompetence in another car mechanic long before it’s apparent to a layperson observer.
    - sigmoid10 4y ago
      >No one has said that anything is a hoax What? Have you even read OP's article? A direct quote from the article has her saying this physics research is "religion masquerading as science under the guise of mathematics." If that's not insinuating a hoax I then don't know what is.
      - hnfong 4y ago
        I'm not religious myself, but by that statement you're insinuating that religions in general are hoaxes. IMHO religions are just religions. As much as you can't scientifically prove the existence of god, you can't disprove it either. It's not necessarily a hoax.