Well I'll guess they'll need to make an edit to post on Luc Montagnier.
Nobel Disease
11–20 of 139 posts
Re: Nobel Disease
#12Milton Friedman being the main quoted figure in the article, and that he attempts to link it back to his own field, is a huge irony. He’s certainly one of the most “wild ideas beyond his domain” public intellectuals of his century.
Re: Nobel Disease
#13> Luc Montagnier co-discovered HIV in 1983 […]
> During the COVID-19 pandemic, Montagnier promoted the idea that SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately created and escaped from a laboratory
My understanding is that quite some researchers think that the lab leak hypothesis is possible, but unprovable at this point. I know Wikipedia treats it as some fringe hoax, but to me it seems almost religious. In the sense that the idea has been marked as a conspiracy theory at the very beginning and nothing can change that stance anymore. When a scientist supports it, it discredits the scientist instead of supporting the theory.
(For transparency, my personal opinion on covid origin is that I find it difficult to believe either side of the debate when it claims it is 100% sure.)
Re: Nobel Disease
#14What I've (noticed) is that many of their beliefs overlap. Nobel prize winners are the smartest people on the planet, people go out of their way to extend them a carpet everywhere they go, we are supposed to do that, but then are we also supposed not supposed to believe what they say? I'm truly confused, this part of the training definitely needs a review.
I think I would trust a Nobel laureate on their topic of expertise, as indicated by their Nobel prize. The problem seems to be that they are asked - and often answer - questions on topics unrelated to that topic, in the belief they're just, y'know, really smart . I think the economics prize must be the worst banana skin for the recipients - popular economics science books like Freakonomics have cemented in the public…
There isn't simply any awards given for heterodox views alone.
Re: Nobel Disease
#15From the examples given in this article it is absolutely impossible to tell whether the "incorrect beliefs" (be it racism, mushroom aliens, vitamins curing cancer, whatever) are in any way connected to the Nobel prize. For all I know, they all could have been racists, psylocibe users, etc. long before they received any prizes and the associated attention. In fact, it could even be possible that they had much worse an…
>it is absolutely impossible to tell whether
It's literally the second sentence of the article.
Re: Nobel Disease
#16> Luc Montagnier co-discovered HIV in 1983 […] > During the COVID-19 pandemic, Montagnier promoted the idea that SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately created and escaped from a laboratory My understanding is that quite some researchers think that the lab leak hypothesis is possible, but unprovable at this point. I know Wikipedia treats it as some fringe hoax, but to me it seems almost religious. In the sense that the idea has…
Came here to note this as well. I think the lab leak theory is becoming more acceptable.
Re: Nobel Disease
#17This article linked at the bottom is interesting too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ne_supra_crepidam
"Let the cobbler not judge beyond the shoe"
Re: Nobel Disease
#18I’d argue it is even more common among successful startup founders.
Re: Nobel Disease
#19What I've (noticed) is that many of their beliefs overlap. Nobel prize winners are the smartest people on the planet, people go out of their way to extend them a carpet everywhere they go, we are supposed to do that, but then are we also supposed not supposed to believe what they say? I'm truly confused, this part of the training definitely needs a review.
> Nobel prize winners are the smartest people on the planet
I wouldn't go that far. They are not dumb and they like to promote their ideas. They can probably give an above-average take on most things.
There are millions of other not-dumb people who will give their opinions on anything. If you ask them their opinions on everything a lot of them will say crazy stuff, but a Nobel laureate says it it makes more headlines.
Re: Nobel Disease
#20From the examples given in this article it is absolutely impossible to tell whether the "incorrect beliefs" (be it racism, mushroom aliens, vitamins curing cancer, whatever) are in any way connected to the Nobel prize. For all I know, they all could have been racists, psylocibe users, etc. long before they received any prizes and the associated attention. In fact, it could even be possible that they had much worse an…
>it is absolutely impossible to tell whether It's literally the second sentence of the article.
Yes, that's my point.
Take any other award, list people who got it and had "incorrect beliefs", add an article about it and preamble it with "it is unclear whether it is an effect of the award". What purpose does it serve? Do you think there should be articles for all of those "diseases"?
Nebula award disease
Crossword Book award disease
Turing award disease
Pulitzer award disease
Fields medalist disease
et cetera?