Those who do not commit fraud themselves usually tolerate it in their peers. The minority who will not tolerate frauds usually weed themselves out quietly. I have lost count of how many friends of friends entered a PhD program, had an adviser who tacitly or explicitly demanded they commit fraud to get publishable results, and quit in disgust without raising a public stink.
I listened to this companion podcast to that article some time ago:
I find Samo Burja and Bismarck Analysis interesting. Iâll read that article.
From the podcast (typed by ear by me):
Burja: By the late 19th century it was rare for someone to be doing science outside of a universities uh context.
Landau-Taylor: Right, and like Einstein was. And the universities could still get the science from him, but that was like unusual and surprising in his day. And today I donât think they could accept the contributions from an Einstein who was outside of the system at all.
Burja: So if a patent clerk today actually came up with better theory of gravity, they probably would not recognize it.
Landau-Taylor: Yeah, like theyâd publish on weird blogs and like after four years some guy with a phd would rewrite the thing and then they could take it seriously.
So thatâs the Man-German story.
Then he brings up Guzeyâs refutation of Why We Sleep as an example.
Woah, this post made me tear up.
1 Like
i was going to post in https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/curiosity-specialist-creators-with-small-audiences but i canât find it now. guess it was deleted because the auto generator mistakenly created an unnecessary copy? i havenât read through this thread yet. i was initially looking to post this in the i changed my mind thread but this fits better here after reading the article.
i think LMD was going in the right direction in the historicism thread getting to the same issue that iâm raising there but then stopped. asked three questions about your article, no reply, never posted in that thread again. you just acknowledged in #21 that there are multiple criteria and the analysis isnât as clear-cut as the original article presented. LMD could have got you there months ago.
honest observation from my experience so far: itâs harder to have a productive back and forth with you than it usually is with people i discuss ideas with or even just people in general. thereâs something about how the conversations go thatâs hard to explain well. i think it reflects in how quiet the forum is unless itâs been unusually quiet since i joined. maybe itâs just a bandwidth issue. i donât know if creating for an audience is a full time thing for you.
i pointed this out in the capitalism forum thread too that i almost stopped because your reply felt closed. i believe you when you say you didnât mean it that way but itâs definitely an issue for this forum to work as an error correction system.
your article frames the problem as people not caring enough but what if some of them cared and just stopped trying? saying you outclass people at debate reinforces this. it tells the copilots theyâre right to stay quiet.
Yeah I got more of the old threads properly linked to the blog posts today. A bunch werenât which leads to duplicates.
1 Like
I donât think I acknowledged that. Please be careful speaking for other people.
1 Like
acknowledged was the wrong word. i was trying to say that in #21 you describe historicism as having multiple themes rather than one clean criterion, and you say some of Deutschâs claims look non-historicist on the surface. that made the issue seem less clear-cut to me than the articleâs framing. is that a fairer way to put it?