3 ms·
Steuard is too polite to point this out himself, so I will do it for him: he is a physics professor. That the amount of money is small is a measure of how incre
by scott_s 12y ago
Steuard is too polite to point this out himself, so I will do it for him: he is a physics professor. That the amount of money is small is a measure of how incredibly unlikely he thinks any useful result would come from the experiments.
- syncsynchalt 12y agoThank you for the pointer, I have a bad habit of not noticing usernames anyway. That said I still think my argument is valid, if you are seeing an incorrect result in a simple experiment it's still worth lab time figuring out which of your instruments or equipment is introducing it, even if you have 0.00% confidence that it's anything special or interesting.
- Intermernet 12y agoSteuard himself would hopefully point out that although being a physics professor grants his opinion a greater weight than those of us who are less informed, to claim that he is automatically correct would be fallacious. Politeness in this regard is preventing appeals to authority. I personally disagree. The money has been allocated to a section of NASA designed to research exactly this sort of theory. Pulling funding from these people would be like telling Ernest Solvay to put away his wallet.
- scott_s 12y agoI am not saying he is automatically correct. I am saying that one should consider his profession, expertise, his level of skepticism, and then reconsider priors.