Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:54AM   Printer-friendly
from the whom-do-you-trust...-and-why? dept.

Danger, Will Robinson!

Given that collaboration [in science] is the norm, you may be asking yourself the eternal question: Who cares? How does the image of a lone scientist hero cause any danger to me?

The problem arises when there is a debate about a scientific topic. Following this structure, debate is a necessary and encouraged part of the scientific process. This debate happens before the idea is released to anyone outside of a few scientists and, while it can become heated at times, takes place with great respect between proponents of different viewpoints.

The danger can come when scientific results are released to the public. Our society now provides a platform for anyone to comment, regardless of his or her education, experience or even knowledge of the topic at hand.

While this is an excellent method of disseminating knowledge, it can also provide a platform for any opinion—regardless of the weight of data behind it—to be equal to that released in more traditional scientific ways.

Particularly in today's largely populist climate, people are looking to see the lone scientist hero overthrow the perceived dominance of facts coming from academia.

And herein lies the problem. In this situation, the opinion of a lone commenter may be considered on equal footing with that of tens or hundreds of people who have made the subject their life's work to ensure their interpretations are correct.

Everybody is entitled to their own scientific opinion, but everybody is not entitled to their own scientific facts?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @10:53PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @10:53PM (#600400)

    Complexity increases over time until it exceeds what one person is capable of.

    Complexity increases until it exceeds what a customer is ready to pay for. Which is entirely unrelated to the problem domain.

    The latest Apple toy is not a hard requirement for doing a voicecall or sending an email; the latest MS Office is not a hard requirement for editing a text or a table. Every thing is growing in complexity, but that complexity is working against the user, not for him. Neither sounds nor letters have become any complexer since 1970s.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Redundant=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Redundant' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday November 27 2017, @03:04PM

    by urza9814 (3954) on Monday November 27 2017, @03:04PM (#602067) Journal

    The latest Apple toy is not a hard requirement for doing a voicecall or sending an email; the latest MS Office is not a hard requirement for editing a text or a table.

    What's that got to do with scientists? Sure, a single person could write the thousandth "new" spreadsheet application or text editor, but that's not advancing any new frontiers, it's just reinventing the wheel.

    Neither sounds nor letters have become any complexer since 1970s.

    No, but physics and biology and chemistry have. Theory could *potentially* be advanced by the lone scientist -- ie, making new predictions in string theory probably requires little more than a pen and paper -- but actually collecting the evidence to prove or disprove those theories still requires complex experiments that are generally out of reach of lone individuals.