3 ms·
"such as the fact that their paper is published in a philosophy journal, and the guy having a history degree instead of a physics degree." "-- argument from au
by jdpage 12y ago
"such as the fact that their paper is published in a philosophy journal, and the guy having a history degree instead of a physics degree."
"-- argument from authority, very unscientific. If an unemployed poodle shaver publishes a replicable experiment, it is science."
Not only is it an unscientific argument, it's just wrong. The guy did his undergraduate and masters in physics, then switched to history of science for his doctorate because he realized that nobody was going to fund what he wanted to work on and he needed a job. He also works with other physicists who do have doctorates in physics.
- api 12y ago"nobody was going to fund what he wanted to work on and he needed a job." That's very logical -- it's incredibly hard to fund anything speculative. My underlying point is that being honestly wrong doesn't make you a pseudoscientist, and should not result in character assassination or claims of being a fraud or a quack. That sort of thing contributes to a climate of dogmatism and extreme risk aversion in science that more or less guarantees that nothing new will ever be discovered.