Timeline for How can a layman easily get the consensus view of what academia *thinks* about a subject?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 19, 2021 at 22:17 | answer | added | Ben | timeline score: -1 | |
| Jul 19, 2021 at 21:23 | history | edited | JCool | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 341 characters in body
|
| Jul 12, 2021 at 22:16 | history | unprotected | Buzz | ||
| Jul 12, 2021 at 18:58 | answer | added | user01 | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 13, 2019 at 22:16 | history | protected | Anonymous Physicist | ||
| May 13, 2019 at 13:10 | comment | added | sgf | @AnonymousPhysicist It's about "the consensus view of what Academia thinks", not about "what academics think". | |
| May 13, 2019 at 11:37 | answer | added | i336_ | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 13, 2019 at 10:16 | comment | added | Anonymous Physicist | @SantiBailors As I mentioned above, the question was about what academics think, not about their conclusions. Academics think about the reasoning that leads to conclusions. | |
| May 13, 2019 at 8:59 | comment | added | SantiBailors | @AnonymousPhysicist your question could be reduced to "How can I get an expert understanding without being an expert?" Why? Knowing what's the consensus among experts is very different from "getting an expert understanding". The former does not require a level of knowledge that allows to understand the reasonings that led to the consensus, while the latter does. | |
| May 13, 2019 at 7:53 | comment | added | sesquipedalias | For any process you choose for determining current consensus on a topic, think how it can be intentionally abused in order to mislead you, or how it could accidentally mislead you. Areas such as global warming and evolution are good examples here: you can see how politics manipulates perceptions of actual current consensus ("teach the controversy", etc) | |
| May 12, 2019 at 23:28 | comment | added | Anonymous Physicist | @henning, sgf, taladris I think you are all misreading the question. The question is about what academics think, not about the truth/falsity of popular topics like climate change. | |
| May 12, 2019 at 15:41 | comment | added | sgf | @AnonymousPhysicist Honestly, if the only people that ever know what the academic consensus is are academics in that field, it makes you wonder why people should fund research at all. | |
| May 12, 2019 at 15:25 | comment | added | henning no longer feeds AI | @AnonymousPhysicist That's very pessimistic. A fairly recent textbook will easily tell you what the scholarly consensus on any topic is, as long as that topic isn't the subject of cutting edge research. Want to know how skin cells look? Open a textbook on histology. Want to have a rough estimate of how many were murdered during the Holocaust? Open a history textbook. Want to know whether climate change is real? Read the reports of the IPCC. Want a rough idea of how stars die? Ask an encyclopedia. Want to know the consensus view on the impact of exercise on health? Read the WHO recommendations. | |
| May 12, 2019 at 13:42 | comment | added | Anonymous Physicist | @Taladris No. For example, one can become an expert in classical mechanics without contributing to consensus views on the nature of classical mechanics. As for global warming, you do not need to be an expert to know it is happening, but you do need to be an expert to understand what academics conducting research on global warming are thinking about. That was part of the question. | |
| May 12, 2019 at 13:23 | comment | added | Taladris | @AnonymousPhysicist: that's not the same. An expert is someone that participates to the establishment of the consensus, and know how this consensus was reached. It is not necessary to be an expert to know the consensus about global warming. | |
| May 12, 2019 at 13:11 | comment | added | Blazej | I must sadden you. My general impression is that even for a professional scientist, getting acquainted with material not directly within one's area of expertise typically requires significant effort. | |
| May 12, 2019 at 9:59 | answer | added | FoldedChromatin | timeline score: 8 | |
| May 12, 2019 at 7:16 | comment | added | Solar Mike | For the longbow read this book : amazon.co.uk/Longbow-Military-History-Robert-Hardy/dp/… | |
| May 12, 2019 at 5:21 | history | became hot network question | |||
| May 12, 2019 at 3:01 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackAcademia/status/1127408360846974976 | ||
| May 12, 2019 at 2:20 | comment | added | Anonymous Physicist | One source is never enough to show consensus, so it cannot be easy to determine the consensus. | |
| May 12, 2019 at 2:20 | comment | added | Anonymous Physicist | I think your question could be reduced to "How can I get an expert understanding without being an expert?" To which the answer is: You should study the topic until you are an expert. It's never easy to become an expert. | |
| May 12, 2019 at 1:10 | answer | added | user48953094 | timeline score: 41 | |
| May 12, 2019 at 0:25 | history | asked | JCool | CC BY-SA 4.0 |