Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science
avi-loeb.medium.com
Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science
1–10 of 41 posts
Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science
#2[deleted]
Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science
#3The article refers to a very specific form of toxic communication commonly known as heckler's veto.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto
The problem is more pervasive and frequently more subtle than the specific discourse context the article illustrates. A counter example is software where an open source project typically requires no funding or approval to initiate, but equivalent initiatives in professional settings are frequently vetoed due to the emotional insecurity of a select few vocal participants. In the world of software this is frequently referred to as Invented Here Syndrome.
Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science
#4I really love Avi Loeb. The search for potential fragments of an interstellar comet at the bottom of the ocean was a long shot, and that’s what’s so great about it.
We need many more scientists who are willing to look at far out ideas while remaining very rational and scientific about it. We have plenty of stick to the tried and true conservative scientists and plenty of cranks.
Edit: if we see another object like Oumuamua I would love it if we had a “chase probe” ready. It was going so fast at such a weird trajectory intercepting would have been extremely hard but having something ready to send on a flyby seems reasonable. Some great close up photos and spectroscopy would go a long way.
Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science
#5The phenomenon is certainly nothing new (see Sayre's Law). People are petty, awful, wonderful, magnificent creatures...and everything in between.
The new thing is the tools that enable massive groups to mob together and fulfill their worst impulses. Most institutions have not developed a robust immune system for this novel disease.
Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science
#6It seems odd that even legitimate science that is even tangentially related to the UAP Subject is being attack from so many sides.
Given the historical context of the CIA infiltrating and spying on UFO groups[0] and what can only be described as an active political fight around the Schumer Amendment [1] it makes me wonder if at least some of this is orchestrated by political/national security Circles
[0] https://sgp.fas.org/library/ciaufo.html [1]https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sch...
Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science
#7The article refers to a very specific form of toxic communication commonly known as heckler's veto . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto The problem is more pervasive and frequently more subtle than the specific discourse context the article illustrates. A counter example is software where an open source project typically requires no funding or approval to initiate, but equivalent initiatives in profession…
> Heckler's veto
Often motivated by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome.
Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science
#8The article refers to a very specific form of toxic communication commonly known as heckler's veto . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto The problem is more pervasive and frequently more subtle than the specific discourse context the article illustrates. A counter example is software where an open source project typically requires no funding or approval to initiate, but equivalent initiatives in profession…
> A counter example is software where an open source project typically requires no funding or approval to initiate, but equivalent initiatives in professional settings are frequently vetoed due to the emotional insecurity of a select few vocal participants.
Is that true, though?
"Equivalent initiatives in professional settings" require resources being allocated to projects that bear no relation with company goals. By definition, this means these types of projects require a company to fund a project that is not aligned with the company's purpose. Why would anyone pay for something that they don't need or want or care about?
Resource allocation is not silencing or vetoing projects. Just because your employer doesn't pay you to work on your pet project that does not mean you're being censored.
Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science
#9It seems odd that even legitimate science that is even tangentially related to the UAP Subject is being attack from so many sides. Given the historical context of the CIA infiltrating and spying on UFO groups[0] and what can only be described as an active political fight around the Schumer Amendment [1] it makes me wonder if at least some of this is orchestrated by political/national security Circles [0] https://sgp.…
The most likely reason for bullshit around the UFO issue is to cover up secret aircraft:
https://www.military.com/history/why-first-us-jet-fighter-pi...
But that doesn’t mean looking into aliens is silly. The Fermi paradox is genuinely mysterious and one potential answer is “well actually, they are here…”
What is necessary is to just ignore all the crazy bullshit in the UFO field including all the new age wackos. Unfortunately even renaming it to UAP didn’t do the trick. There’s a whole grifter infrastructure here.
I don’t think you need to involve the CIA. There’s plenty of grassroots insanity here. If there is or was CIA involvement I’d suspect it was gorilla masks for secret aircraft.
Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science
#10It seems odd that even legitimate science that is even tangentially related to the UAP Subject is being attack from so many sides. Given the historical context of the CIA infiltrating and spying on UFO groups[0] and what can only be described as an active political fight around the Schumer Amendment [1] it makes me wonder if at least some of this is orchestrated by political/national security Circles [0] https://sgp.…
The Grusch testimony points to a vast off-budget organization that researches exotic tech. They protect their turf from traditional science.