Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (77181)	9/4/2011 5:04:56 PM
From: TimF	3 Recommendations Respond to of 90947

I don't defer to scientists because I am a scientist. Coyote Blog \| Warren Meyer \| Krugman Unintended Irony: Anyone Who Does Not Unquestioningly Believe Authorities is Anti-Science here. It’s a wonder how, when over “97 percent to 98 percent” of scientific authorities accepted the Ptolomeic view of the solar system that we ever got past that. Though I could certainly understand why in the current economy a die-hard Keynesian might be urging an appeal to authority rather than thinking for oneself. When, by the way, did the children of the sixties not only lose, but reverse their anti-authoritarian streak? Postscript: I have always really hated the nose-counting approach to measuring the accuracy of a scientific hypothesis. If we want to label something as anti-science, how about using straw polls of scientists as a substitute for fact-based arguments?I think Krugman's position of automatically deferring to scientists and determining truth by head-count is extremely foolish. And I think that specifically because I am a scientist. I was at a small conference last week and I had to stand up in front of the room and give a talk, and one of the points motivating that talk is that a giant in my field is wrong about something. His view in incomplete, and his techniques are flawed. His works gets hundreds, sometimes thousands of citations. It is widely accepted. Mine is hardly read. But his work is flawed, and I think I can show how. No one in the room said "how dare you question this eminent researcher, and the legion of people who agree with him?" They heard me out, and I think I convinced at least some of them my point has merit. I was not the only one doing this. There were several other talks whose focus was errors in the work of our colleagues. One man's whole thesis was that the consensus -- yes, consensus -- about n-back training is incorrect. He couldn't replicate any of it. He thinks the statistics are sloppy and the methods are erroneous. He spoke for an hour about this, forcefully. It undermined the work of a lot of people in that room. But we all heard him out rather than shouting "But you're going against the accepted consensus! You're anti-Science!" And we heard him out specifically because we are scientists, and we listen to dissenting opinions rather than crouching behind a shield of popularity. That's fine for pundits and columnists and talking heads, but in the lab that kind of behavior is unacceptable... southbend7.blogspot.com