Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nobel Disease

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 139 posts

Re: Nobel Disease

#21

Post by ciropantera »

yreg wrote: post #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…

Lab leak is one thing, "deliberately created and escaped" is a different story.

Re: Nobel Disease

#22

Post by ImHereToVote »

jdw64 wrote: post #2

There's a statistic similar to this showing that socially successful people tend to think they're above the law. I think that once people achieve a certain level of success, they start to think, 'I can get away with this much.' That's why I'm not successful. I'm trying not to lose my critical perspective. I consider that critical perspective my treasure.

Most people are scared of voicing their heterodox views. It really is as simple as that. Once you are not dependent on an income they can be more truthful.

Re: Nobel Disease

#23

Post by sajithdilshan »

moralestapia wrote: post #4

What 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.

You’re not supposed to believe anything anyone says or because it’s written in a book or because that’s how it always has been. You have a brain and use it to think critically and analytically. Only after that you decide if you agree or not.

Re: Nobel Disease

#24

Post by ginko »

ciropantera wrote: post #21
yreg wrote: post #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…

Lab leak is one thing, "deliberately created and escaped" is a different story.

"deliberately (created and escaped)" is very implausible yes. "(deliberately created) and escaped" not so much though.

Re: Nobel Disease

#25

Post by epolanski »

ciropantera wrote: post #7

A lot of these aren't "strange or scientifically unsound ideas" but downright racism. Whether Nobel prize recipients are less or more racist than their contemporaries is debatable but I'm not sure they fit the same category as "believed in ghosts" or "claims to have talked to a fluorescent racoon".

That still belongs to strange or scientifically unsound.

Re: Nobel Disease

#26

Post by epolanski »

People that enjoyed success in any field tend to think they can replicate in others.

See Musk, whom believes that if he's done A or B right, makes him an expert on the entire alphabet.

Re: Nobel Disease

#27

Post by nicole_express »

moralestapia wrote: post #4

What 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 the point is exactly that just because someone is smart in one area doesn't mean they know anything about other areas, and yet we constantly assume that's true.

We probably shouldn't be treating Nobel prize winners as the smartest people generally, just specifically in the field of their discovery. Very common fallacy to fall for though, and when everyone treats you like a general genius, of course you're going to give your opinions.

Re: Nobel Disease

#28

Post by leni536 »

cyclopeanutopia wrote: post #20
ragazzina wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

The difference is notability, which is the criteria used whether a distinct Wikipedia article is warranted. There are multiple cited sources that use the "Noble disease" term, there are possibly much fewer similar publications with "Fields medalist disease".

That is not to say that the theory holds water. Flat Earth theory is also notable and has a wiki page, even if blatantly wrong. There is no hyperboloid Earth theory wiki page.

Re: Nobel Disease

#30

Post by aswegs8 »

epolanski wrote: post #25
ciropantera wrote: post #7

A lot of these aren't "strange or scientifically unsound ideas" but downright racism. Whether Nobel prize recipients are less or more racist than their contemporaries is debatable but I'm not sure they fit the same category as "believed in ghosts" or "claims to have talked to a fluorescent racoon".

That still belongs to strange or scientifically unsound.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN