5 ms·

> Questionable methods get mass debated in public. By people who don't know what they're talking about. You're seriously underestimating the level of expertis

• generalizations 3y ago
  What matters is the discovery of new things that are true, that we can do engineering with. Publication by youtube & arxiv doesn't have to be oriented at public consumption - it works just as well when it's by-researchers, for-researchers. Except without gatekeeping, people like McCalip can participate too. Who cares who's sitting on the sidelines? In post-peer-review, industry-funded academics rush a paper to a preprint server, a space engineer replicates it, and someone else figures out how to mass-produce it, and we get room-temp ambient-pressure superconductors, and we know we did because the engineering works. This works just as well with less exciting tech, because the point is that we collaboratively learned how to build something.
  • MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago
    Agreed. What I don't understand is the gatekeeping. Why would the actions of outsiders have any bearing on "real" research? Are they worried that grant money will get redirected toward shallower, more glamorous groups?
    • dotnet00 3y ago
      I think the gatekeeping is relevant because almost every time in recent years that the general completely unvetted, often actively ignorant public has gotten an in on the scientific/R&D process, it has been a disaster for the field. NASA can't take risks and seriously innovate anymore because even intentional explosions will be passed off as failures, we all experienced the sheer madness of the covid years, similarly anything nuclear brings complete randos out of the woodworks claiming absurd things about its dangers. Not having some amount of gatekeeping just lowers the bar too much and introduces so much more noise.
      • MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago
        > Not having some amount of gatekeeping just lowers the bar too much and introduces so much more noise. I can see how this would be a very controversial subject. Discouraging scientific participation? That's a tough pill to swallow without a lot of justification.
        • dotnet00 3y ago
          It isn't discouraging participation, it's requiring that you meet some minimum level of proficiency to be considered credible. Kind of like how you need to have some experience in programming to have any credibility when talking about how a programming language should be designed.
          • MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago
            > it's requiring that you meet some minimum level of proficiency to be considered credible That's not really the case though is it? Doubting someone's credibility would simply mean ignoring their results. But withholding information is something else entirely.
            • dotnet00 3y ago
              Maybe I'm misunderstanding, where did withholding information come into this?
              • MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago
                > Maybe I'm misunderstanding, where did withholding information come into this? When I mentioned gatekeeping I was specifically referring to how there's this formula that was kept secret since 1999. At some point the potential significance surely became apparent, and one of the only speculations I can come up with to justify that would be gatekeeping; keeping the information out of the hands of the filthy commoners for reasons. Maybe it wasn't gatekeeping. If not I'd sure as heck like to know what it was.
    • giantrobot 3y ago
      My personal opinion/reaction likely isn't going to affect anyone's grant status. I'm just a random asshole. But there are less random assholes whose opinion might count. If someone sounding authoritative, but is just a random asshole like me, shits on this work on social media it might affect a group's grant status if it taints the opinion of someone holding the purse strings. So I don't think asking about credentials or asking about references is gatekeeping. It's putting a statement into context. If I as a random asshole say "this isn't a superconductor" you as a reader should want to know where I'm getting that opinion from rather than just taking my statement at face value.
      • MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago
        I'm not suggesting we give random people credibility: I'm suggesting that when we make potentially-enormous breakthroughs that maybe we shouldn't keep that information to ourselves for decades. Edit: According to this it was just an unfortunate 19-year hiatus. (Yikes.) https://twitter.com/8teAPi/status/1684385895565365248 https://twitter.com/8teAPi/status/1684385895565365248
• okonomiyaki3000 3y ago
  > > Questionable methods get mass debated in public. > By people who don't know what they're talking about. I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds all these public mass debaters disgusting.
• bee_rider 3y ago
  They say you don’t really understand something until you can teach it. I wonder to what extent “can I teach this to the general public, and do they care?” is an indicator of both understanding new results and also whether or not they really matter. Of course, we’re often working on a tool to help make tools for other scientists, so that sort of thing is hard to explain to the general public, but ultimately it should terminate in some results that actually have obvious value to society in general.
• codedokode 3y ago
  > You're seriously underestimating the level of expertise that it takes to professionally assess most research. It wouldn't be unusual for there to be a small handful of people with that ability in the world. Does it mean that grant money are distributed by people who are unable to "assess most research"?
  • svara 3y ago
    No, because funding agencies use external reviewers who are experts in the field of an application.
  • ivalm 3y ago
    Depends on the level. At the level of congressional appropriation then certainly. At the program manager level then hopefully the pm knows.