[eplanit]

"When an academic wins a Nobel prize, they have achieved a pinnacle of expertise. At which point they often start to wax philosophic, and writing op-eds. They seem to be making a bid to become an elite. Because we all respect and want to associate with elites far more than with experts. Elites far less often lust after becoming experts, because we are often willing to treat elites as if they are experts. For example, when a journalist writes a popular book on science, they are often willing to field science questions when they give a talk on their book. And the rest of us are far more interested in hearing them talk on the subject than the scientists they write about."

Not one single sentence of that paragraph is true.

When an academic wins a Nobel prize, they have achieved a pinnacle of expertise. No, they've achieved celebrity status (perhaps well-earned by being a top expert). There are those who are experts, but who do not get Nobel prizes. It's not a perfect prize.

They seem to be making a bid to become an elite. They don't get the prize because the ask for it or buy it, and the celebrity status comes with it automatically. Some recipients capitalize on it, for sure. I think "the elites" bring them into their circles on their own.

Because we all respect and want to associate with elites far more than with experts. No, we all don't.

For example, when a journalist writes a popular book on science...the rest of us are far more interested in hearing them talk on the subject than the scientists they write about. I think many (maybe not enough, for sure) don't see 'journalists' as scientific experts. For your Sanjay Guptas it may be true, but he's not a true journalist .

[_2d30]

> When an academic wins a Nobel prize, they have achieved a pinnacle of expertise. No, they've achieved celebrity status (perhaps well-earned by being a top expert). There are those who are experts, but who do not get Nobel prizes. It's not a perfect prize.

You’re mistaking a claim of necessity for a claim of sufficiency.

> They seem to be making a bid to become an elite. They don't get the prize because the ask for it or buy it, and the celebrity status comes with it automatically. Some recipients capitalize on it, for sure. I think "the elites" bring them into their circles on their own.

Hanson is talking about what they do to garner additional publicity with the prize now that they have it, not getting the prize and its status in the first place. You conveniently left out the sentence before that.

> Because we all respect and want to associate with elites far more than with experts. No, we all don't.

Steelmanning Hanson here would suggest reading it as hyperbole. I think a good thought experiment would be “ho many people wanted to hang out with the pre-Nobel winner vs the post-Nobel winner”, however, to illustrate what he is getting at.

[PeterisP]

It's also worth noting the time delay between winning a Nobel prize and the work for which the prize is received - which generally is 20 or perhaps even 30 years.

They were at a pinnacle of expertise decades before winning the Nobel prize, and arguably might not be there anymore when they do get the award - which essentially is the point of transforming from an expert to elite status.

[actuallyalys]

>For example, when a journalist writes a popular book on science...the rest of us are far more interested in hearing them talk on the subject than the scientists they write about. I think many (maybe not enough, for sure) don't see 'journalists' as scientific experts. For your Sanjay Guptas it may be true, but he's not a true journalist .

Yeah, this seems dubious to me. For one thing, I think people are plenty interested in pop sci books written by experts—hence all the books by doctors that include "MD" after their name on the cover. Of course, sometimes the MD doesn't indicate expertise in the topic they're writing in, but I suspect a book marketed as "pediatrician and pediatrics researcher Dr. So-and So writes about [childhood health topic]" would probably do better than "Dr. So-and-So, MD, writes about [childhood health topic]."

For another thing, there are other plausible explanations than a preference for elites—journalists are more experienced at writing for a general audience and they may have more connections to mass market publishers (rather than academic publishers).

I'd also argue communicating science is a separate skill from doing science. I think all scientists have at least a modicum of skill at communicating science to their peers, but journalists can very well have more experience in communicating science to the public than scientists. It's confusing since Hanson acknowledges communication as a kind of expertise when he refers to journalists as "news experts" elsewhere in the post.

[hobom]

His science journalist part is also not convincing. Neil deGrasse Tyson far outstrips the popularity of science journalists, because unlike other scientists he is not boring to everyday people