Well, academics routinely do disseminate such knowledge. Not least, to appeal to the community to find such a solution.
It is highly unlikely a researcher in "finding X" is an expert in "solving X" or otherwise has the capacity to do so.
The "head in the sand" approach here doesn't "ease community tensions" it does precisely the opposite: prolong them for fear open investigation "goes against the consensus".
Agreed, was not referring to the researchers, rather those getting informed by the pop media. I've heard people dismissing this known process as an impossibility
No it's not hopeless, but when done right it becomes indistinguishable from true investigative and research work; wouldn't be nice if you could share the results of that extensive effort put into uncovering the truth so that others could benefit? Oh, wait...
> No conclusion? What's the point of doing research or reporting it if you learned nothing?
This attitude is (imho) a major problem in research/academia. If you've done research into something you should report it even if the results were unclear, ambiguous, or non-existent. For one it lets people know if this is a fruitful avenue to pursue and/or whether further study is warranted. It can thus reduce unnecessary repetition of effort. Furthermore, making the findings and methodology public enables people to use it as a starting point for other studies, perhaps varying the methodology or asking different questions on related topics.
Though I think @cypherpunks01 and @WalterSear are likely right about this particular article/page.
So you've come up with a heuristic that says 1) doing your own research is fine, and 2) people who tell you to do 1) are suspect?
If so, I can't imagine thats very effective. You're probably better off just assuming strangers don't know what they're talking about unless you have some good reason to believe otherwise.
Yes, the article is chastising people for research and getting opinions from others, and suggesting that the solution is to do research and to get advice from others.
Given that it's not completed research, yes. If were the "public report" of completed research, I wouldn't have commented on not spreading information around until it's substantively supported.
If you spent months doing research, is there a way you could share your findings besides broad stroke sweeping statements? All these discussions get cluttered with people offering few details about their investigative process but offering their conclusions. It doesn't serve to move the discussion forward because there are anecdotal experiences on both sides.
The dirty secret is people don't base their decisions on academic findings. They make their decision and then search out findings that support it to use as arguments for it.
'A highly complex and recondite field, and a solid answer on any but the most trivial question requires nontrivial research to identify with confidence.'
So very much like the problem identified here then?
I might find articles more convincing and persuasive if researchers were not on record constantly impugning the integrity of their own investigation by going in with pre-conceived notions.
Or hell, one detailed thought experiment about the nature of BSL4 outbreak mitigation systems and how they can fail.
Of course, that's unthinkable. That strays too close to highly inconvenient questions.
You are giving a lot of weight to the originality of academic institutions and their platforms as authorizers of knowledge.
There are plenty of examples of people knowing things, or seeing things as obvious, which are only much later acknowledged by academic research.
You are welcome to base your reality on what academia publishes, and accept that authority, but let’s be clear that this is what you are choosing to do.
Also, it’s worth looking at the majority of comments on this post. Most of them also appear to assume that the research’s result was obvious.
The prioneers and experts of the field see it as a problem. The uninformed opinion of the general public doesn't carry much weight on this matter.
People who don't see it as a problem should take the time to read one of dozens published papers outlining the dangers and problems it will pose. If they then still don't feel it's a problem, they're encouraged to publish their own research supporting that view.
Exactly. Speculation from someone who is entrenched in the study of a subject is very valuable. Is it not speculation that leads to further investigation and eventually a scientific study? Educated guesses is just as much a part of science as doing an actual controlled study.
Why not? Plenty of researchers aren’t thorough. I’m not saying that’s the case here but it’s entirely plausible from what I know about academia and wouldn’t be a crazy claim to make.
I would take some of this with a grain of salt; I distrust a religion prof who says academic research needs to solve more practical problems. The main practical problem he's trying to solve is selling more copies of his book.
It is highly unlikely a researcher in "finding X" is an expert in "solving X" or otherwise has the capacity to do so.
The "head in the sand" approach here doesn't "ease community tensions" it does precisely the opposite: prolong them for fear open investigation "goes against the consensus".
reply