I dislike how this article goes out of its way to prejudice the reader against a perfectly reasonable criticism but making it sound like critics are simply unwilling to entertain unconventional ideas.
My problem with the article is that it's extremely hard for humans in general, and critics in particular, to accurately model the alternative.
The lack of a visible solution does not make all criticism less valid. Criticism can be an expression of flaws without including a drubbing for not doing better. It's often made public as combination of the two, but the later can be disqualified without impeaching the validity of the former.
Even if the criticized thing is the best possible expression of the goal(s) given all the other constraints, it is still right to accept and express that limitations exist. -- Pretending they don't is just an ugly attempt to prevent the critic from refining their criticism to include the goals and self-imposed constants they view as causing the flaw.
> I think "attacking" Crazy New Ideas is how we develop them, iron out the kinks and test our understanding.
Criticism is the crucible in which crazy new ideas are forged into crazy viable ideas.
> However, the main problem I have with with this article is that it divides people into domain experts and the rest.
Let's be honest: in this day and age "the rest" are far too vocal and need to STFU on things which they have no knowledge. Sure, domain experts can disagree - let them be heard, but the know-nothings should be given zero attention.
It's a bad argument, because validity of a critique is not predicated on critic's life choice. It's like arguing that you cannot critique a movie because you have never made one.
Great point, thanks for bringing it up! True, I wasn't detailed on this point in the article, but I do agree with what you wrote - it's not either-or, there's good kind of criticism, too. I think I'll think about it a bit and rephrase that point. How would you talk about this?
This is patently absurd. The author fleshes out a rich and detailed argument for comparing/contrasting rather than one-sided criticism as a way to provide feedback, but your best refutation of it is to point at the one sentence in which he cited someone you feel is of dubious credibility and proclaim "Therefore he's dumb!"
Oh, but you said "proper" criticism. I get it now.
I have one (insignificant?) beef with the article, in that it positions critics of a scientific discipline as those who decide the validity of the 'status quo' - this is right, that is wrong - which is a rather bleak picture of what their role is for. Criticism is as intrinsic to the development of a theory/experiment as is the effort of the scientist.
reply