Originally posted by archZFSman
View Post
Originally posted by archZFSman
View Post
- These people might not be who they claim to be -- we cannot verify.
- Their credentials might be lies or exaggerations -- we cannot verify.
- Their contributions might be far less substantial than they claim -- we cannot verify.
- They might have ulterior motives or gone a bit nuts -- we cannot verify.
- Their claims might seem to make sense to a non-expert, but have obvious flaws or errors that an expert could easily identify.
- Their claims might even makes sense to fellow experts, but don't pan out when put to the test -- that's why science runs experiments!
You are operating entirely by trusting what some internet stranger is saying. Science doesn't rely on somebody's reputation, because it's fundamentally unreliable. Even if their identities and credentials are exactly as they say, any large population of practitioners is going to have a few nutters. That's why it's so important to have good data to back up a sound theory, and then try to convince other experts.
Linux doesn't randomly accept untested patches from an unknown PhD with a nice CV that have only been reviewed by Python programmers who know nothing about OS kernels. No, Linux requires that you test your changes and then they're reviewed by experts in that area. And then, if they are found to break something, they get reverted.
And don't pretend you just stumbled upon these folks while doing a broad survey of all the latest research. We all know that they get exposure through fringe groups and media outlets with blatant bias. That makes them immediately more suspect than someone with comparable credentials chosen at random.
I'm not even saying everything they're saying is wrong. I'm just saying that it's a really bad idea for people to try to judge for themselves. For an "educated" person, it's like a Javascript programmer, who knows nothing about kernel development, being asked to review an untested kernel patch. For someone who lacks a college-level science foundation, it's like having a 6-year-old child review that same patch. What these "experts" need to do is convince the majority of other experts.
To everyone saying "do your own research", I wish I could plop them in the middle of a field with a shed of farm tools and say: "grow your own food". Or, maybe sit them down at a disconnected PC with a stack of software development books and say: "write your own kernel". Expertise matters and institutions matter. To deny that is to deny the very things that enabled humanity to advance to this point.
Leave a comment: