3 ms·

9x% of scientists agree has always struck me as profoundly stupid. Are these scientists in the same field? Has there been a Galilean discovery that is not widel

9x% of scientists agree has always struck me as profoundly stupid. Are these scientists in the same field? Has there been a Galilean discovery that is not widely accepted yet? Who surveyed a statistically significant portion of “scientists”? What credentials does one need to be considered in that population? Does a master of computer science have authority on biology, physics, chemistry, ecology, geology, or any other number of fields?

mcpackieh 3y ago
I've found that a good rule of thumb is to ignore anybody who is self-describing as "a scientist". If they self-describe as some specific kind of scientist then I'm more than willing to listen. If somebody says "as a biologist" or "as a geologist" or "as a whateverologist", that's fine. If they identify themselves in an even narrower way, that's even better. But if somebody says "as a scientist", just generic 'scientist', then they're trying to imply a very broad sort of expertise that almost certainly is not justified. They're basically saying "as an expert in everything..." Such people are usually safe to ignore.
- dewey 3y ago
  Sounds like something that's usually based on context. To someone who's not a scientist "I'm a scientist" is most likely more helpful than "I'm a particle physicist". Same as you might say "I'm an engineer" to a non-technical person vs. "I'm a Go backend engineer" on a tech meetup.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    No, because the general public is comfortable with the words like 'physicist', 'chemist', 'biologist', 'geologist', etc. If a particle physicist is opining on particle physics to the general public, they'll self describe "as a particle physicist" or at the very least "as a physicist". They'll use the most precise term that is likely to be understood by the audience. Only if that person isn't a physicist at all will 'scientist' be the most precise expertise they can claim. The general public is comfortable with the word physicist, so there's no reason for a physicist to avoid identifying as such when discussing physics with the general public. On the other hand, a marine biologist who is opining on particle physics may self describe "as a scientist", because that's the most precise level of expertise they can claim without lying. Saying "as a biologist" when discussing particle physics wouldn't confer the desired credibility, so a less precise term is used. Conspicuous lack of precision is the tell: If people are discussing basketball and somebody says "as an athlete", it's safe to conclude they aren't a basketball player. They would have said "as a basketball player" if they were. If people are discussing motherhood and somebody says "as a parent", it's fairly safe to conclude they aren't a mother. If they were a mother, they'd say "as a mother" because that more precisely relates to the topic of motherhood. If somebody is opining on firefighting practices and says "as an emergency responder", they aren't a firefighter. They might be an EMT or a cop, but a firefighter would say "as a firefighter" when discussing firefighting. And finally, if a Go backend engineer claims his expertise to be "programmer" to a general audience, that's fine. But if he's saying "as an engineer" or "as a scientist" then he should probably be ignored. Yes, I've known people to do this, programmers calling themselves "scientist" because they have a CS degree, opining on bullshit unrelated to anything they ever studied.
howinteresting 3y ago
[flagged]
- vitaming 3y ago
  [flagged]
- edgyquant 3y ago
  Why did you crawl through this persons post history? Why do you think his opinion should result in a ban? What does any of this have to do with what’s being discussed here? Seems to me like maybe you should be banned. You’re the only one not adding anything to the conversation and instead trying to instigate a flame war. You’d be happier circle jerking on Reddit.
  - howinteresting 3y ago
    Post histories are the only way to hold people on a pseudonymous website accountable. I think I made it very clear why their opinion should result in a ban. Also, as a general rule, it's impolite to use anything other than "they" if you don't know someone's pronouns. edit: any comments on the object-level issue at hand, shkkmo? Or are you going to be like the worst people on the internet and focused entirely on the meta level? Also, I don't trust dang enough, given reports from Hector Martin and others of being ignored. So I post about it here. (As to why I don't just leave HN, well, it's too important a forum.)
    - shkkmo 3y ago
      You are the one violating the HN guidelines by dredging up old off-topic comments and derailing the conversation. If you feel like an account deserves a ban for some reason, an email to dang is the correct response. Off-topic comments at not.
      - howinteresting 3y ago
        Any comments on the object-level issue at hand? Even a "While the comment you linked to is reprehensible," will do.

mcpackieh 3y ago

I've found that a good rule of thumb is to ignore anybody who is self-describing as "a scientist". If they self-describe as some specific kind of scientist then I'm more than willing to listen. If somebody says "as a biologist" or "as a geologist" or "as a whateverologist", that's fine. If they identify themselves in an even narrower way, that's even better. But if somebody says "as a scientist", just generic 'scientist', then they're trying to imply a very broad sort of expertise that almost certainly is not justified. They're basically saying "as an expert in everything..." Such people are usually safe to ignore.

dewey 3y ago
Sounds like something that's usually based on context. To someone who's not a scientist "I'm a scientist" is most likely more helpful than "I'm a particle physicist". Same as you might say "I'm an engineer" to a non-technical person vs. "I'm a Go backend engineer" on a tech meetup.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  No, because the general public is comfortable with the words like 'physicist', 'chemist', 'biologist', 'geologist', etc. If a particle physicist is opining on particle physics to the general public, they'll self describe "as a particle physicist" or at the very least "as a physicist". They'll use the most precise term that is likely to be understood by the audience. Only if that person isn't a physicist at all will 'scientist' be the most precise expertise they can claim. The general public is comfortable with the word physicist, so there's no reason for a physicist to avoid identifying as such when discussing physics with the general public. On the other hand, a marine biologist who is opining on particle physics may self describe "as a scientist", because that's the most precise level of expertise they can claim without lying. Saying "as a biologist" when discussing particle physics wouldn't confer the desired credibility, so a less precise term is used. Conspicuous lack of precision is the tell: If people are discussing basketball and somebody says "as an athlete", it's safe to conclude they aren't a basketball player. They would have said "as a basketball player" if they were. If people are discussing motherhood and somebody says "as a parent", it's fairly safe to conclude they aren't a mother. If they were a mother, they'd say "as a mother" because that more precisely relates to the topic of motherhood. If somebody is opining on firefighting practices and says "as an emergency responder", they aren't a firefighter. They might be an EMT or a cop, but a firefighter would say "as a firefighter" when discussing firefighting. And finally, if a Go backend engineer claims his expertise to be "programmer" to a general audience, that's fine. But if he's saying "as an engineer" or "as a scientist" then he should probably be ignored. Yes, I've known people to do this, programmers calling themselves "scientist" because they have a CS degree, opining on bullshit unrelated to anything they ever studied.

howinteresting 3y ago

[flagged]

vitaming 3y ago
[flagged]
edgyquant 3y ago
Why did you crawl through this persons post history? Why do you think his opinion should result in a ban? What does any of this have to do with what’s being discussed here? Seems to me like maybe you should be banned. You’re the only one not adding anything to the conversation and instead trying to instigate a flame war. You’d be happier circle jerking on Reddit.
- howinteresting 3y ago
  Post histories are the only way to hold people on a pseudonymous website accountable. I think I made it very clear why their opinion should result in a ban. Also, as a general rule, it's impolite to use anything other than "they" if you don't know someone's pronouns. edit: any comments on the object-level issue at hand, shkkmo? Or are you going to be like the worst people on the internet and focused entirely on the meta level? Also, I don't trust dang enough, given reports from Hector Martin and others of being ignored. So I post about it here. (As to why I don't just leave HN, well, it's too important a forum.)
  - shkkmo 3y ago
    You are the one violating the HN guidelines by dredging up old off-topic comments and derailing the conversation. If you feel like an account deserves a ban for some reason, an email to dang is the correct response. Off-topic comments at not.
    - howinteresting 3y ago
      Any comments on the object-level issue at hand? Even a "While the comment you linked to is reprehensible," will do.