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

91–100 of 139 posts

Re: Nobel Disease

#91

Post by bmitc »

epolanski wrote: post #87
bmitc wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk hasn't ever been intellectually successful in anything. He's a grifter.

He's definitely been successful as an entrepeneur. That doesn't make him an expert in physics, computing, politics, economy, etc, etc.

> He's definitely been successful as an entrepeneur.

Has he had anything to do with the "success" of his companies other than as a fundraiser, i.e., grifter? Have people forgot about his tunnel company, his solar company, the fact that he was kicked out of PayPal, someone else actually runs SpaceX, his ridiculous $40+ billion dollar purchase of Twitter, and his recent grifts to basically rid himself of the massive debt and risk of his Twitter purchase by forming pyramid companies?

The dude is a joke of an entrepreneur. He is a grifter and nothing more. Grifters can be "successful", unfortunately.

Further, this post is discussing intellectuals and not entrepreneurs.

Re: Nobel Disease

#93

Post by croisillon »

fred_is_fred wrote: post #79
embedding-shape wrote: post #33

> an informal term for the embrace of strange or scientifically unsound ideas by some Nobel Prize winners, usually later in life. It has been argued that the effect results, in part, from a tendency for Nobel winners to feel empowered by the award to speak on topics outside their specific area of expertise Sounds pretty much like every founder out there who strike gold once in the past now believing their genius now…

Like making a payments platform and then 30 years later telling everyone the anti-christ is coming?

"making" seems far fetched, "happened to be vested with shares" seems the most factual

Re: Nobel Disease

#94

Post by i-blis »

qurren wrote: post #89
i-blis wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article lists an order some 10 of Nobel prize-winners later seen as "unsound" mostly in a field other than their main area of expertise. Making them 1 in 100. I won't be surprised that 1 in 100 senior scientist expresses unorthodox or even unsound ideas when foraging far away from their field, particularly on the kind of topics listed. I agree that the share of unorthodox thinkers should all in all be higher amon…

Venturing outside your field is also part of what drives discovery itself, not a post-Nobel symptom, because you see the new field with a fresh set of eyes rather than textbook-brainwashed eyes. A lot of discoveries are made by someone who "imported" insights from one field to another.

> Venturing outside your field is also part of what drives discovery itself, not a post-Nobel symptom

This is precisely what I meant to say (and seemingly failed) and why I upvote you!

Re: Nobel Disease

#96

Post by kube-system »

aswegs8 wrote: post #30
epolanski wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That still belongs to strange or scientifically unsound.

[flagged]

It falls into the formerly mentioned "strange" category for other reasons, along with many other cruel practices. "Scientific soundness" is far from the only benchmark for a good idea.

Re: Nobel Disease

#98

Post by kube-system »

stronglikedan wrote: post #86
cestith wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree ethics can be subjective, so much so that there is more than one model of ethics. However, please tell me which model of ethics supports eugenics. Is it Utilitarian, Rights, Fairness, Common Good, or Virtue?

Since it's subjective, you can just make up your own model supporting eugenics, and it'll be just as valid as any other model.

but it may not be accepted or viewed as moral by others

Re: Nobel Disease

#99

Post by Der_Einzige »

CalRobert wrote: post #41
embedding-shape wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's just completely outside of today's Overton window Never heard it expressed like that, but I guess you could apply it to tons of stuff? > Lobotomy is not scientifically unsound, as aswegs8 proves, it's just completely outside of today's Overton window.

I mean, if we wanted every human on Earth to be over 6' tall, we could just cull the short ones (or stop them from reproducing), and this is scientifically valid, but, of course, evil. As far as lobotomy, I don't know, but it seems to be widely discredited inasmuch as it didn't achieve its aims (or if it did, the aims themselves were highly questionable) Given the title, lobotomy is an apt reference "The originator o…

"6 feet, 6 figures, 6 inches" is unironically eugenics.
Post reply on HN