[wumpus]

Great choice of critic -- who has written many books about scientists commiting fraud because of their lust for grant money.

Too bad his criticism comes from fantasy, instead of facts.

And of course he's a climate change denier.

[thetopher]

I’ve read State of Fear, and I agree that Crichton isn’t a great source for scientific facts.

But this quote isn’t really a criticism of science. It’s a criticism of journalism.

I think most people here on HN agree with his premise regarding the quality of science journalism. I’m not so sure about his conclusion that all journalism should be treated with the same suspicion.

[wumpus]

The background of the critic matters, and that was what I was addressing.

[megapolitics]

It doesn’t actually, because the point stands on its own.

[vba616]

>Too bad his criticism comes from fantasy, instead of facts.

The quoted passage specifically says his area of expertise is show business. Do you know of misinformation that he endorses or spreads on that topic?

[wumpus]

His books all have a scientist doing evil because of their lust for grant money.

"State of Fear" is a polemic against climate science.

If all you read was the comment I responded to, then it's no surprise that you don't think I provided enough information to criticize his books. Read his books, then read my criticism.

[neartheplain]

>His books all have a scientist doing evil because of their lust for grant money.

How unrealistic. Scientists like Peter Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance would never do anything evil or untoward, such as using grant money to perform dangerous gain-of-function research on coronaviruses, demonstrably lying to the NIH about the scope of this research, and then misleading the public on the COVID-19 lab-origin theory while failing to disclose their financial and professional ties to the lab in question [0][1][2].

[0] https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/coronavirus-research-gra...

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/25/one-perso...

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/lab-leak...

[vba616]

>it's no surprise that you don't think I provided enough information to criticize his books

I didn't say that.

My point is that your comment reinforces the point that is made by the much-quoted quote.

He said he knows show business. Calling his writing on climate science crap is consistent with the quote.

Can you see how your comment sounds paradoxical?

[wumpus]

No. It makes your comment seem a non-sequitor. Perhaps you could have worded it more clearly.

[vba616]

The original comment you made, which was downvoted (but I upvoted it) conveyed to me an emotion of angry refutation. (Which I'm not judging, so don't start about tone policing)

You seemed to be saying "don't pay attention to his quote because he's clueless about climate change", but the quote is about people who aren't, say, climate scientists, being gullible about the topic.

It's a self-referential quote. If you refuted it, does that mean that non climate scientists can judge climate science?

It seemed like an amusing paradox, and I guess I'm curious about your motivation.

[wumpus]

My motivation is that I'm a scientist (before and after a long Silicon Valley career) who is annoyed by writers who write a bunch of novels where the villains are scientists corrupted by their lust for grant money. It's a trite complaint that is used in politics to claim 100% of scientists are biased, and plays a big role in the pushback against environmental and climate science.

Thanks for the upvote.

[BongoMcCat]

Not op, but I think that the post that you replied to has a valid point.

Sure, the quote in itself is great, but the post that you replied to is pointing out that the person who made that quote is himself doing the same thing as those journalists that he is criticizing.