Dead horses notwithstanding, I found this comment chuckle-worthy: ----------- Mary Mangan • 2016-05-19 02:51 AM Heh. Yeah--imagine making evidence-free (aka "impressionistic") claims in front of a room full of people who value evidence. Who could have predicted that? -----------
That was a comment on this article: http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-sceptics-hit-back-after-rebuke-1.19945?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews On 05/19/2016 08:29 AM, glen ⛧ wrote: > For me, I tend to be a skeptic in my own field (modeling & simulation) and a > contrarian outside it. And on this front, this article was also interesting: Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2285 "We find that evaluators systematically give lower scores to research proposals that are closer to their own areas of expertise and to those that are highly novel." In other words, Horgan's basing his talk on his "impressionistic view" of skeptics was just plain lazy. That doesn't make his contrarian assertions false, just fragile. -- ⛧ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
