Hubris of the google researcher

racecartrain

Credit: It is not that easy from xkcd

Saw this on The Complexity of Modern Science at the Physic Forum Websites. It really does illustrate problems with some of the commenters here who wish to throw away scientific consensus – or replace it with a pet or ideologically driven “theory” of their own.

As the article implies these comments often use arguments like those below which are “frequently seen as response to scientific arguments against various crackpottery:”

““I listened to some science TV show, now I came up with my own theory.” This could have a chance if the TV show would fully cover the topic. It does not.

“Scientists don’t know detail X, therefore they know nothing.”

“Scientists were once wrong in point Y, therefore we cannot trust any result.” .

Sound familiar?

Similar articles

4 responses to “Hubris of the google researcher

  1. Ken: ” Scientists don’t know detail X, therefore they know nothing.”

    “Scientists were once wrong in point Y, therefore we cannot trust any result.” .

    Sound familiar?”

    Just like what Stuartg said about a Lin FF translation.

    Like

  2. A scientific paper stands on its merits. Or fails.

    When a written, or cut and pasted, defence of a paper gets longer than the paper itself, that’s a pretty good indication that the paper cannot stand on its merits.

    Brian, you can defend Lin et al as much as you like. No-one is preventing you from doing so.

    It would appear, however, that you haven’t realised that meritorious papers do not require this amount of defending.

    Like

  3. Stuartg my point is that I reflect your argument back at the defence of “science.”

    And your voluminous attacks on papers because of minutiae when you lack anything substantial to say actually parallel some people’s attacks on “science.”

    And further you make no comment about when “interested” reviewers dignify research.

    Like

  4. Brian,

    If there is no foundation to a building, it cannot stand.

    If researchers do not pay attention to the minutiae (such as Lin not adding up), then their paper has no merits to stand on.

    Without data to back it up, the paper is no longer research, all it does is present someone’s conjecture.

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s