3 ms·

What is humiliating is to be seen failing to learn from elementary criticisms by longtime professionals. In this, Loeb is different from promoters of the end-P

What is humiliating is to be seen failing to learn from elementary criticisms by longtime professionals. In this, Loeb is different from promoters of the end-Pleistocene comet strike in North America, where all the criticisms were obviously specious and tendentious. In that case it was the critics who were humiliated. E.g., Boslough insisted, both circularly and speciously, that the historical rarity of comet strikes proves that no such recent strike could have occurred. Loeb is different from promoters of the 130,000 year old mastodon butchery site in San Diego, where all the criticisms published after were already fully refuted in the original paper.

rhelz 3y ago
> failing to learn from elementary criticisms Well, the ability to conform to the conventional wisdom of the field isn't necessarily a skill which promotes scientific progress. You know what skill does? The ability to ask the right question. And Dr. Loeb asked himself, "hmm....could I collect material from an interstellar meteorite if I trawl the seabed with a magnetic sled?" Now I think that is a pretty good question. The answer may be "Yes" or the answer may be "No". But either way, it's a great question, which apparently nobody else asked, let alone put in the effort to raise money and try to answer. And it would be a shame if such questions weren't asked for fear of being bullied. Alas, really, the only way we know of asking the right question is to ask a lot of questions, most of which will be the wrong question :-( We tend not to emphasize this fact, but everyone who ever made a breakthrough has asked an endless amount of stupid questions. But if you don't have the courage to look dumb, you'll never get anywhere.