IlyaShpitser comments on LW should go into mainstream academia ? - Less Wrong

5 Post author: Marlon 13 May 2015 01:23PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (49)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 14 May 2015 08:16:50AM *  3 points [-]

Ok, but before we turn everything upside down, can we think a little about why academia ended up being the way it is? Hanson had some good status-based explanations about the academic career trajectory.


If you haven't done cutting edge stuff, the worry is you don't know what you are talking about yet, and shouldn't be a public-facing part of science.


Also there are well-known popularizers who aren't significant academics, e.g. Bill Nye. Bill Nye did some engineering stuff, though.

Comment author: ChristianKl 14 May 2015 01:08:36PM 2 points [-]

Aren't defacto most popularizers of academia journalists who write popular articles about science?

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 14 May 2015 01:43:55PM 0 points [-]

Journalists and scientists that write popular exposition books. The former are generally terrible (journalists tend to have an education that emphasizes writing, not numeracy).

Comment author: ChristianKl 14 May 2015 02:14:29PM 2 points [-]

The former are generally terrible

But that doesn't stop them from doing it or finding an audience.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 14 May 2015 03:22:10PM *  0 points [-]

Yes, but no one important takes them seriously.

Comment author: ChristianKl 14 May 2015 03:50:10PM 1 point [-]

I think plenty of politically important people read the science section of the New York Times and of other newspapers.

If important people would only listen to scientists for understanding science we would have different policy on global warming.

Comment author: Marlon 14 May 2015 12:56:14PM 1 point [-]

Same reason why milesmathis (google it, have fun) isn't taken, and shouldn't be taken seriously by the mainstream. Because "playing by the rules" didn't work - you usually end up with an unending amount of crackpottery in what is actually not published: books, blogs, etc.

Not publishing in the mainstream while publishing books and self published articles is the crackpott's artillery, unfortunately.

Think like the mainstream: given the amount of crazy stuff that's present on the internet that couldn't be published because it was, indeed, crazy, should I care about this particular guy that doesn't publish anything but books (or self published articles) ? The unfortunate answer is no.

Comment author: komponisto 15 May 2015 05:48:40AM -1 points [-]

Ok, but before we turn everything upside down, can we think a little about why academia ended up being the way it is?

Why do you assume I haven't?

Stop expecting short inferential distances!

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 15 May 2015 09:05:46AM *  2 points [-]

Because you wrote one sentence without actually giving the argument. So I went with my prior on your argument. And my prior about arguments that argue for drastically changing the existing order of things is they aren't right.