4 ms·

I'd say their reaction depends mostly on how you approach them and the discussion. People generally have more pressing issues in their life and prefer delegatin

I'd say their reaction depends mostly on how you approach them and the discussion. People generally have more pressing issues in their life and prefer delegating them to recognised authorities.

kragen 3y ago
naturally, but obviously argumentum ad verecundiam is the opposite of science
- maksimur 3y ago
  It's indeed the opposite of science, but the average person doesn't have the time, patience or energy to be doing science. Thus the need to put the trust on people that do because they're often right. If anything, when you see them appealing to the wrong or vague authority, you could provide better options or become one yourself.
- Tainnor 3y ago
  Even scientists can't help but trusting other scientists. Nobody can rederive everything from scratch.
  - kragen 3y ago
    there's a world of difference between 'the crc handbook says pentamethonium frangonide has a specific heat of 2951 kilojoules per mole per kelvin, but its molar mass is only 502 grams per mole, so that would give a surprisingly high specific heat of 5.9 kilojoules per gram per kelvin, so i'd better check the nist webbook and google scholar, but probably this grammatical-error-filled paper i found in google scholar from three researchers i've never heard of published in a journal i've never heard of isn't a very reliable source and they were probably just copying the crc handbook' and 'scientists say there's a missing link' being able to, in principle, rederive things from scratch gives you a lot of information about who to trust
    - Tainnor 3y ago
      A difference in degree maybe, but not in kind. Trust is a central part of science, without it no advance would be possible. > being able to, in principle, rederive things from scratch Basically no scientist nowadays has any hope of being able to rederive everything from scratch. Not even in mathematics, where experiments are cheap, can you avoid relying on theorems from outside of your area of expertise.

I'd say their reaction depends mostly on how you approach them and the discussion. People generally have more pressing issues in their life and prefer delegating them to recognised authorities.

kragen 3y ago

naturally, but obviously argumentum ad verecundiam is the opposite of science

maksimur 3y ago
It's indeed the opposite of science, but the average person doesn't have the time, patience or energy to be doing science. Thus the need to put the trust on people that do because they're often right. If anything, when you see them appealing to the wrong or vague authority, you could provide better options or become one yourself.
Tainnor 3y ago
Even scientists can't help but trusting other scientists. Nobody can rederive everything from scratch.
- kragen 3y ago
  there's a world of difference between 'the crc handbook says pentamethonium frangonide has a specific heat of 2951 kilojoules per mole per kelvin, but its molar mass is only 502 grams per mole, so that would give a surprisingly high specific heat of 5.9 kilojoules per gram per kelvin, so i'd better check the nist webbook and google scholar, but probably this grammatical-error-filled paper i found in google scholar from three researchers i've never heard of published in a journal i've never heard of isn't a very reliable source and they were probably just copying the crc handbook' and 'scientists say there's a missing link' being able to, in principle, rederive things from scratch gives you a lot of information about who to trust
  - Tainnor 3y ago
    A difference in degree maybe, but not in kind. Trust is a central part of science, without it no advance would be possible. > being able to, in principle, rederive things from scratch Basically no scientist nowadays has any hope of being able to rederive everything from scratch. Not even in mathematics, where experiments are cheap, can you avoid relying on theorems from outside of your area of expertise.