Not so much a question as a FYI. I came across this Gilneya-related news item this morning. I have you heard this news yet?: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304444604577341490361751420.html
See this blog post at http://photoninthedarkness.com/?p=38
It talks about out-of-the box thinking and about two Nobel Prize winners who later promoted stupid theories in fields outside their expertise.
ENDS WITH THIS- QUOTE: So, all you mavericks out there who feel that your lack of education and experience in a field gives you a unique ability to see what those who have labored long and hard cannot, remember these two “cautionary tales”. And try to keep an open mind about why the people who have been in the field for years and years may not be receptive to your startling insights. When they brush you off or ignore your input, try to think outside the box of “conspiracy and stubborness” ...
Re: "When they brush you off or ignore your input, try to think outside the box of “conspiracy and stubborness” ..."
We couldn't agree more and we as a group make an effort to think outside the box. Hypotheses needs testing and when the testing shows that they are wrong we move on.
Take CCSVI for example, Zamboni came up with incredible data to support the CCSVI hypothesis. This data has not be confirmed outside his immediate circle of collaborators. Based on the current data the consensus in the scientific community is that CCSVI is non-specific and may not exist as a clinico-pathological entity. What should we do? Should we ignore the evidence and become "believers" or should we take-off the blinkers and look elsewhere?
Not so much a question as a FYI. I came across this Gilneya-related news item this morning. I have you heard this news yet?: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304444604577341490361751420.html
ReplyDeleteSee this blog post at http://photoninthedarkness.com/?p=38
ReplyDeleteIt talks about out-of-the box thinking and about two Nobel Prize winners who later promoted stupid theories in fields outside their expertise.
ENDS WITH THIS-
QUOTE:
So, all you mavericks out there who feel that your lack of education and experience in a field gives you a unique ability to see what those who have labored long and hard cannot, remember these two “cautionary tales”. And try to keep an open mind about why the people who have been in the field for years and years may not be receptive to your startling insights. When they brush you off or ignore your input, try to think outside the box of “conspiracy and stubborness” ...
Re: "When they brush you off or ignore your input, try to think outside the box of “conspiracy and stubborness” ..."
ReplyDeleteWe couldn't agree more and we as a group make an effort to think outside the box. Hypotheses needs testing and when the testing shows that they are wrong we move on.
Take CCSVI for example, Zamboni came up with incredible data to support the CCSVI hypothesis. This data has not be confirmed outside his immediate circle of collaborators. Based on the current data the consensus in the scientific community is that CCSVI is non-specific and may not exist as a clinico-pathological entity. What should we do? Should we ignore the evidence and become "believers" or should we take-off the blinkers and look elsewhere?
P.S. Many Thanks Maria for the Heads Up
ReplyDeleteOutside the field doesn't need to be-
ReplyDeleteWatson (Crick and Watson and DNA) and eugenics- definitely IG10
Why did you pull down the annual ASIAN MS SOCIETY meeting flyer? Is it because of the racism coming from people? If so then that is a shame.
ReplyDeleteRe Asian MS. We think their was a google glitch in the post as neither Prof G or I pulled the post.
ReplyDeleteI think "Asian Kid" gave an eloquent answer
The post is up again