<div dir="auto"><div>+100. Very well said. Apologies that I have nothing further to add. <br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Aug 6, 2020, 8:46 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
Quoting <a href="mailto:extropy-chat-request@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat-request@lists.extropy.org</a>:<br>
<br>
><br>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 7:58 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat <<br>
> <a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>><br>
>> *Being an astrophysicist does not entitle Ethan Siegel to speak on behalf<br>
>> of all scientists. The notion that scientists should stay in their own<br>
>> research lanes and not pursue questions or develop opinions in other<br>
>> fields is ludicrous.*<br>
><br>
> I'll tell you what's ludicrous, the idea that you must do your own research<br>
> and every reader of the journal Nature or Science must personally reproduce<br>
> every experiment in them before he can conclude that what they say is<br>
> probably true. Can you imagine a microbiologist reproducing an astronomer's<br>
> 10 year research project using the world's largest telescopes to determine<br>
> the distribution of galaxies in the universe? Can you imagine an astronomer<br>
> reproducing a microbiologist's 10 year research program to determine the<br>
> expression of genes in a paramecium? I can't either.<br>
<br>
I agree that it is silly to expect microbiologists to reproduce <br>
results from astronomers or vice versa. But that's not what I am <br>
talking about. What I am talking about is if a microbiologist wants to <br>
buy a telescope, look at the sky with it, form opinions, ask <br>
questions, and use the scientific method to answer them, then she is <br>
within her rights to do so. Same if an astronomer wants to buy a <br>
microscope and study paramecium. Doing so does not suddenly make them <br>
an expert in the other's field, but it can still legitimately be <br>
called science. So is a layperson buying scientific instruments and <br>
tinkering around in his garage.<br>
<br>
That being said, there is a reproducibility crisis going on in <br>
science. According to 2/3 of the researchers surveyed by Nature, <br>
irreproducibility of published results are a huge problem in science, <br>
these days:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.nature.com/collections/prbfkwmwvz/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.nature.com/collections/prbfkwmwvz/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
> The history of scientists telling other scientists in very different fields<br>
> how they should do their job is full of humiliating failures. I'm thinking<br>
> of the eminent physicist lord Kelvin who told geologists that they got it<br>
> all wrong and that the Earth was not billions of years old but only about<br>
> 20 million;<br>
<br>
And the history of so-called laypeople simply following their <br>
curiosity and exploring natural phenomena that interested them is full <br>
of resounding successes. Successes like Einstein who became a great <br>
physicist, but not until after he discovered special relativity as a <br>
patent clerk. Or Gregor Mendel who was a monk when he discovered <br>
genes. Or Erasto Mpemba who was a 13 year old school boy in Tanzania <br>
when he discovered the Mpemba effect. Lay people are capable of making <br>
important contributions to science. To say otherwise is elitist <br>
gate-keeping.<br>
<br>
> and the eminent astronomer Fred Hoyle who told biologists they<br>
> got it all wrong and Darwinian evolution can't work and said those who are<br>
> mathematical geniuses got that way because they received mathematical<br>
> genius genes from viruses which came from outer space; and the eminent<br>
> physical chemist Linus Pauling who told doctors they got it all wrong and<br>
> that vitamin C could cure just about everything.<br>
<br>
Hoyle and Kelvin were wrong, but so what? And to his credit, Linus <br>
Pauling lived to be 98 years old so, if it did not help him, then his <br>
mega-dosing of vitamin-C certainly did not harm him. Come to think of <br>
it, with all the supplements and nootropic stacks being taken around <br>
these parts, he probably would have fit right in on this here list.<br>
<br>
> If you're an expert in one field of science you must realize that it took<br>
> you many years to obtain the necessary knowledge and skills to reach that<br>
> level, and if you're not only smart but also wise you'll know that there<br>
> are fields of science other than your own and conclude that experts in<br>
> those fields may know more about them than you do. This is even more true<br>
> if you're a civilian and not an expert in ANY field of science.<br>
<br>
The advantage that professional scientists has over amateurs by virtue <br>
of "years of experience" is countered by the high-stakes <br>
publish-or-perish environment that the scientist lives under which <br>
incentivises the manipulation and misinterpretation of results which <br>
in turn leads to irreproducibility.<br>
<br>
> And I must conclude that today's science deniers tend to be ideological<br>
> stooges of the right.<br>
<br>
Unless the science is genetics as it pertains to things like <br>
sex-determination, IQ, and genetically modified organisms. Other <br>
sciences routinely denied by the left are nuclear physics (nuclear <br>
power) and immunology (vaccinations).<br>
<br>
Stuart LaForge<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>