|
|
|
|
|
|
by edmundsauto
1973 days ago
|
|
|
Please let me reassure you that I was not upset by your statement - merely providing feedback for how to strengthen your point and avoid a distracting and loaded sidebar. I'm still not clear what the broader point is. That sometimes norms change, and have non-linear impact? Most of the time, a crank is just a crank. That's why we know about the outliers. |
|
|
Sorry, (very) freudian slip there (i guess), i meant ressaured not re-assed haha
is that really true though that a crank is just a crank most of the time? I don't think that's true. I think the skill is looking for the sincerity and the truth in what they're saying aside from any noise that might be there as well. Just like you're trying to make the point of reducing distractions. And just like I think it's important in data analysis you know you want to increase the signal reduce the noise and that's something you as a reader can do. So I don't think it's true that a crank is just a crank it's too much of an easy dismissal. it's important to have these alternative hypothesis generators and to listen and not get distracted by the other stuff. If everyone was obsessed that Newton or Turing or Galileo had culturally normative crank ideas they would have missed the good stuff. And maybe there is good stuff in some of those culturally normative crank ideas. And maybe we did as a society miss out on some of the good stuff because we wanted to say oh cranks are just cranks. so I don't think we should do that and I think you should probably stop doing that if you want to support this idea of you know scientific inquiry and the expansion of knowledge. Just a pointer ;) :p
So, I see you making your points there and I've already made my points so I don't see anything more to add. I'm comfortable that we have different views on it.