4 ms·
> Work by amateurs on Linear A does not have a good track record. Linear A is completely undeciphered, so amateurs have done exactly as well as professionals.
by p-e-w 3y ago
> Work by amateurs on Linear A does not have a good track record.
Linear A is completely undeciphered, so amateurs have done exactly as well as professionals. Meanwhile, Egyptian hieroglyphs, cuneiform, and Linear B were all deciphered by people who would be called "amateurs" by today's standards.
But hey, why miss an opportunity for elitist gatekeeping, even if the topic is demonstrably one of the least suitable places for it?
- greggsy 3y ago> Linear A is completely undeciphered, so amateurs have done exactly as well as professionals. Academics have absolutely done better than amateurs by virtue of continually validating the fact that it isn’t decipherable. The comment isn’t even bashing amateurs - it’s bashing crackpots, who tend to be allured towards the mysterious, especially if their crackpot ideas won’t be inconvenienced by facts.
- chickenbittle 3y agoYeah I think it's really important to distinguish between 'amateur', and 'crackpot' here. Like that amateur stumbling upon that never-repeating tile recently. https://www.quantamagazine.org/hobbyist-finds-maths-elusive-einstein-tile-20230404/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/hobbyist-finds-maths-elusive-... It still required academics to confirm it (and I think realize it's significants). In short it's okay to be an academic and it's also okay to be an amateur investigator. Both can and do contribute to the advancement and dissemination of knowledge. Crackpottery and pseudoscience not so much.