3 ms·

To play devil's advocate, I think there is some merit to their point. A common criticism against modern academia is that so much of the low hanging fruit has be

To play devil's advocate, I think there is some merit to their point. A common criticism against modern academia is that so much of the low hanging fruit has been addressed, that to be an expert working on the actual frontier means your "leaf node" of focus/progress is so so specific, that it's not at all uncommon to be somewhat blinded to the broader consensus/lower resolution version of the greater tree of knowledge. The experts of the kind to which you're presumably referring, who are much more tapped in to the whole state of a broad branch of knowledge, often end up being more "science communicators" than people on the frontier of research. The thing is, though, that these "science communicators" often end up being (or start off being) more akin to a papers/Wikipedia jockey than a credentialed academic actively working in the field. So in that sense, someone who "knows a lot about dinosaurs and can effectively write about them as the broader field currently perceives them" need not necessarily be a credentialed expert.

jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago
Science communicators are typically the people who aren't good enough to do research. I can tell that the ideas you're conveying don't come from your own experience, I'm guessing you heard them from a "science communicator"? By contrast, I do have direct experience, and the best people were doing research, not talking to the media, and they were perfectly aware what kind of evidence exists for which ideas - in fact more than anything else, this is what being an expert is. Talking to the media is a different job than being a researcher, I'm sure you'll agree. What I would like to understand is where this belief of yours come from, that the less knowledgeable people will have a better high level picture? Wouldn't the best high level people come from experts who make an effort to learn about those aspects?
- graemep 1y ago
  > I can tell that the ideas you're conveying don't come from your own experience, I'm guessing you heard them from a "science communicator" An add hominem attack. So was your reply to me.

jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago

Science communicators are typically the people who aren't good enough to do research. I can tell that the ideas you're conveying don't come from your own experience, I'm guessing you heard them from a "science communicator"? By contrast, I do have direct experience, and the best people were doing research, not talking to the media, and they were perfectly aware what kind of evidence exists for which ideas - in fact more than anything else, this is what being an expert is. Talking to the media is a different job than being a researcher, I'm sure you'll agree. What I would like to understand is where this belief of yours come from, that the less knowledgeable people will have a better high level picture? Wouldn't the best high level people come from experts who make an effort to learn about those aspects?

graemep 1y ago
> I can tell that the ideas you're conveying don't come from your own experience, I'm guessing you heard them from a "science communicator" An add hominem attack. So was your reply to me.