Important context: this is Avi Loeb, the guy who insisted that Oumuamua might be aliens. Here's a nice exposé on him and his shoddy work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY985qzn7oI
Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science
21–30 of 41 posts
Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science
#22The 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…
I'm rather sympathetic to the issue in general, but it's comical coming from Loeb. He's been steadily pushing into at the very least fringe territory, and at the worst outright pseudoscience and quackery. He's mad people are pointing that out. That's what this all stems from.
That's superficial and bordering on ad-hominem.
Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
That is half true. There absolutely is a cost to initiating any change, but that is a one time cost. Some changes can yield dramatic increases in productivity or reductions to costs further down stream. If there exists proper discourse that takes this into consideration then in all fairness any veto presented is certainly not toxic. When internal initiatives are killed or directed for purely selfish motivations, such…
> That is half true. There absolutely is a cost to initiating any change, but that is a one time cost. Some changes can yield dramatic increases in productivity or reductions to costs further down stream. If there exists proper discourse that takes this into consideration then in all fairness any veto presented is certainly not toxic.
I'm sorry, I didn't understood a word of what you tried to say. I'm even suspecting this is machine-generated word salad.
Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science
#24Important context: this is Avi Loeb, the guy who insisted that Oumuamua might be aliens. Here's a nice exposé on him and his shoddy work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY985qzn7oI
Just as more context, his body of work overall is exceptional. He's been a Harvard professor for 30 years, he didn't get that position by accident. He's taken the Linus Pauling career path the last few years though, which is unfortunate. But the bulk of the mans career he's published good research and good books, people shouldn't reflexively junk those parts of his work just because he's gone loopy now.
Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science
#25So, the author links to a 32-page arXiv paper that criticizes his own paper, and calls that criticism "toxic" (and "misinformation", too), and contextualizes it with angry Twitter mobs? That's an odd perspective. What exactly does he mean when he says Harvard astronomy department postdocs are being "terrorized" by "aggressive" criticism?
Presumably that people aren't comparing him the heroes of Contact (1997 American film) but instead are getting increasingly annoyed that he's making crap claims.
Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm rather sympathetic to the issue in general, but it's comical coming from Loeb. He's been steadily pushing into at the very least fringe territory, and at the worst outright pseudoscience and quackery. He's mad people are pointing that out. That's what this all stems from.
That's superficial and bordering on ad-hominem.
When your work is as a scientist, and you want to be judged as a scientist, your work being pseudoscience is not superficial. That's like saying pointing out your accountant is facing tax fraud charges isn't germane to his work as your accountant.
Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science
#27Important context: this is Avi Loeb, the guy who insisted that Oumuamua might be aliens. Here's a nice exposé on him and his shoddy work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY985qzn7oI
Just as more context, his body of work overall is exceptional. He's been a Harvard professor for 30 years, he didn't get that position by accident. He's taken the Linus Pauling career path the last few years though, which is unfortunate. But the bulk of the mans career he's published good research and good books, people shouldn't reflexively junk those parts of his work just because he's gone loopy now.
That's partially fair, but it is not really helpful to estimates of the reliability of his current work to point out that in the past, before he got all loopy, his work was reliable.
The fact that he's gone all loopy recently is absolutely the most important context for deciding if you want to take his word on faith or not.
Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just as more context, his body of work overall is exceptional. He's been a Harvard professor for 30 years, he didn't get that position by accident. He's taken the Linus Pauling career path the last few years though, which is unfortunate. But the bulk of the mans career he's published good research and good books, people shouldn't reflexively junk those parts of his work just because he's gone loopy now.
That's partially fair, but it is not really helpful to estimates of the reliability of his current work to point out that in the past, before he got all loopy , his work was reliable. The fact that he's gone all loopy recently is absolutely the most important context for deciding if you want to take his word on faith or not.
Nobody, and let me be clear, absolutely nobody should take Loeb's word for anything at all. His schtick for the last half decade or so is a dressed up 'God of the Gaps' argument, where everything he can't explain is aliens and if someone is able to show better explanations it's not science working but people bullying him.
Which is completely fair. He's done it to himself. No quarrels from me. But there's also a understandable urge to toss everything and that's an overreaction. Pauling being a crank is his late career doesn't mean he didn't deserve the Nobel for his earlier career, and likewise Loeb is/was very important to modern cosmology, you just have to ignore most of what he's published since 2017 or so.
Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science
#29[dead]
Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science
#30Important context: this is Avi Loeb, the guy who insisted that Oumuamua might be aliens. Here's a nice exposé on him and his shoddy work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY985qzn7oI
> Oumuamua might be aliens
Yes, it has few properties which are unusual for natural objects, so it can be an alien artifact. Probability is very low, but non-zero.
> Here's a nice exposé on him and his shoddy work
I have no time for this audiobook.