[ExI] Do your own research

[Stuart LaForge]

Quoting Stathis Papaioannou:

> https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/30/you-must-not-do-your-own-research-when-it-comes-to-science/amp/
---------
"The techniques that most of us use to navigate most of our decisions  
in life — gathering information, evaluating it based on what we know,  
and choosing a course of action — can lead to spectacular failures  
when it comes to a scientific matter.

The reason is simple: most of us, even those of us who are scientists  
ourselves, lack the relevant scientific expertise needed to adequately  
evaluate that research on our own. In our own fields, we are aware of  
the full suite of data, of how those puzzle pieces fit together, and  
what the frontiers of our knowledge is."
--------

Being an astrophysicist does not entitle Ethan Siegel to speak on  
behalf of all scientists. The notion that scientists should stay in  
their own research lanes and not pursue questions or develop opinions  
in other fields is ludicrous. Then he cites problems with climatology  
and COVID-19 as justifications which immediately shows his hand as  
making a political rather than logical argument. There is always a  
risk of spectacular failure in science regardless if a scientist works  
outside or inside his field.

One could even make a case that science is built on failures and  
accidental discoveries. The failure of a new heart medication turns  
out to treat erectile dysfunction or a failure of microbiologist's  
sterile technique leads to the discovery of penicillin. In fact I  
would venture to say that when scientists in different fields  
cross-pollinate ideas and collaborate with one another, science is on  
a firmer footing.

For example if climatologists would collaborate with economists and  
nuclear physicists and come up with  economically feasible solutions  
to anthropogenic climate change maybe somebody other than socialists  
would take them seriously. And maybe if epidemiologists had consulted  
microbiologists, they would have had more realistic models and policy  
recommendations.

I have heard it said that becoming an expert involves learning more  
and more about less and less until in the limit, one knows everything  
about nothing. Imagine how much poorer science would be if Louis  
Pasteur, whom Siegel would advise to stick to chemistry, did not color  
outside the lines of his field to give us germ theory and vaccination  
against rabies.

Given all the evidence, I must conclude that Siegal, aside from the  
hypocrisy of opining on matters not astrophysical in nature, is an  
elitist snob and idealogical stooge of the left.

Stuart LaForge