4 ms·

> 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 subjec

> 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.
      - cycomanic 3y ago
        They didn't keep it, they simply did not work on it and only came back to it 20 years later (somebody posted a bit of history on the other thread currently on the front page, I'm on mobile so it takes to long to find it atm). They didn't know about it's superconducting properties either. So no withholding information at all. But on a more general level if everyone would be posting out every little bit of information they produce during their research instead of publishing articles it would be a disaster. The reason we do science is because we are trying to understand things just posting your random results would just give everyone information overload, because you would know what to focus on. Lk99 is actually a great example, the material would have completely been ignored by most (maybe even has been, not sure if they published about it previously?) if not for these recent results. Moreover because the results were published before the authors were confident about what they had, they have been subject to lots of ridicule and accusations of fraud. It might turn out alright in this case, but something like this can be career ending if it turns out to just be an experimental error.
        MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago
        > They didn't keep it, they simply did not work on it and only came back to it 20 years later (somebody posted a bit of history on the other thread currently on the front page, I'm on mobile so it takes to long to find it atm). They didn't know about it's superconducting properties either. I really do hope it's something innocent like this. > if everyone would be posting out every little bit of information they produce during their research instead of publishing articles it would be a disaster. I'm not sure it would be any worse than it already is. I don't see how we could achieve any more bombastic headlines than we already get.
      - dotnet00 3y ago
        Ah, then I completely misunderstood you. Yeah I'm not in favor of outright withholding information. However, what I think happened here is that they weren't able to work on it for a while, and if say, they didn't feel confident in their findings back in 1999 and only got around to being able to look at it again in 2017, it would make sense that their intent wasn't to gatekeep, it had just become one of those "we'll get around to testing it one day" type of projects everyone has. In this case it just potentially was a pretty massive thing to put off.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

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.
    - cycomanic 3y ago
      They didn't keep it, they simply did not work on it and only came back to it 20 years later (somebody posted a bit of history on the other thread currently on the front page, I'm on mobile so it takes to long to find it atm). They didn't know about it's superconducting properties either. So no withholding information at all. But on a more general level if everyone would be posting out every little bit of information they produce during their research instead of publishing articles it would be a disaster. The reason we do science is because we are trying to understand things just posting your random results would just give everyone information overload, because you would know what to focus on. Lk99 is actually a great example, the material would have completely been ignored by most (maybe even has been, not sure if they published about it previously?) if not for these recent results. Moreover because the results were published before the authors were confident about what they had, they have been subject to lots of ridicule and accusations of fraud. It might turn out alright in this case, but something like this can be career ending if it turns out to just be an experimental error.
      - MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago
        > They didn't keep it, they simply did not work on it and only came back to it 20 years later (somebody posted a bit of history on the other thread currently on the front page, I'm on mobile so it takes to long to find it atm). They didn't know about it's superconducting properties either. I really do hope it's something innocent like this. > if everyone would be posting out every little bit of information they produce during their research instead of publishing articles it would be a disaster. I'm not sure it would be any worse than it already is. I don't see how we could achieve any more bombastic headlines than we already get.
    - dotnet00 3y ago
      Ah, then I completely misunderstood you. Yeah I'm not in favor of outright withholding information. However, what I think happened here is that they weren't able to work on it for a while, and if say, they didn't feel confident in their findings back in 1999 and only got around to being able to look at it again in 2017, it would make sense that their intent wasn't to gatekeep, it had just become one of those "we'll get around to testing it one day" type of projects everyone has. In this case it just potentially was a pretty massive thing to put off.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]