0
   

Ridicule in Online Science Discussions

 
 
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2020 02:19 pm
Everyone was required to take science classes in school. Science books and periodicals are available in public libraries. The internet has many sources of scientific news. Science is thus public discourse, yet many people put all there effort in online science discussions into discouraging discussion of science by ridiculing others, putting them down, calling them 'cranks' or 'pseudoscientists,' etc.

I used to think there was some complex issue of language/knowledge incompatibility causing such people to act so hostile and aggressive. Now I am beginning to think it just comes down to the fact that online discussions are free and don't pay academic scientists to give classes.

Making science into a competition for status and the privilege of making money from the ivory tower is in and of itself an abuse of science. The purpose of science is not self-enrichment and power to ridicule others but rather to strengthen the foundations of democratic societies.

Without scientific understanding, the public is more vulnerable to being manipulated into believing whatever certain interests want them to. As such, scientists should be online discussing science instead of putting others down for thinking about science and posing questions for scientific discussion.

If all you want to do is protect the ivory tower monopoly on science, then go there and leave the internet to people who aren't just interested in defending scientific institutions and jobs. The purpose of public discourse should be to think and talk about science, not ridicule people into shutting up and paying to take classes.
 
Sturgis
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2020 02:57 pm
Oh...


Anyways, there's always been some level of ridicule/teasing on the internet. Same as day to day off the internet life.

So, state your own beliefs, views, ideas and such without getting dragged down or drawn into what you perceive as irritating or pointless. If you believe that you are more knowledgeable on subject, give your side and respond as you see fit. If this includes exiting a thread if it doesn't serve whatever purpose you had in mind.


One more thing - don't be so quick to disparage others or their ideas. Maybe they know what you do not.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2020 04:11 pm
@livinglava,
I am pretty sure this thread is at least in part addressed to me... and I will answer it.

1. Science is a Meritocracy. The good ideas win. The bad ideas are rejected. There are wrong answers in science. When you are making new drugs, or building planes are designing nuclear power plants you had better get it right. We can't let any idiot do these things.

2. Scientists are Educated Real scientists spend years of University Study, learning math, listening to lectures, doing lab work, writing papers. This hard work is important[/b], scientists are not just learning knowledge, they are developing skills. You can't advance real science in any meaningful way without this.

3. Crank Ideas hurt the public. Are you arguing that scientists shouldn't defend against crank ideas? That doesn't seem reasonable. Crank science sometimes have deadly effects, as in when people don't vaccinate their children.

4. Science is done in an ivory tower, there is no other way to do it. The alternative is that anyone can just come up with their own crazy ideas and call it science. If you read the idiotic posts here about 4th dimensional quantum foam.... scientists don't have time to answer this nonsense, they are busy doing real science.

I think the hostility you are feeling is justified; not toward you, but toward your rather ridiculous ideas about science. Yes you are wrong.

What should a real scientists do when someone keep arguing pseudo-scientific nonsense? A real scientist can try to explain how you are wrong.... I have never seen any of you change your mind (if you can point to an example where you have accepted an actual scientific explanation ... I would love to see it).

There are right answers in science. There are wrong answers in science. There is real science. There is fake science. Real science is done by real scientists. I feel that is very important to make this distinction.


maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2020 04:21 pm
I have to admit the social justice issues in science. There is a social problem since science is still a mostly White male field. But this is two different issues.

1. If you don't spend the years it takes to master differential equations you can't be a real Physicists or Chemist or Geologist or master most types of hard science. That is just a fact that we can not change. Quantum Physics starts with Schrodinger's equation. If you can't understand this... then anything you claim to understand about Quantum Physics is nonsense.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/imgqua/schwav6.png

Yes, mastering science is hard work that takes years of study.

2. That being said, it is unfair that this expertise is in the hands of a small group of privileged people.

The answer is to make an advanced education accessible to a broader group of people. You can't dumb down science just to get more people involved.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2020 04:46 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

I am pretty sure this thread is at least in part addressed to me... and I will answer it.

It doesn't matter whom it is addressed to or isn't. It is an open thread, so anyone can weigh in, but you should stick to the topic as much as possible.

Quote:
1. Science is a Meritocracy. The good ideas win. The bad ideas are rejected. There are wrong answers in science. When you are making new drugs, or building planes are designing nuclear power plants you had better get it right. We can't let any idiot do these things.

First of all, science is not a social system consisting of all the institutional aspects of regulating academic departments. It is the practice of knowledge. Any meritocratic or other social-organizational issues are separate from actual science.

Scientific ideas and research may be done by people, but once they put them out there, they become free-floating information, separate from the institutions that attempt to mediate and control them.

Quote:
2. Scientists are Educated Real scientists spend years of University Study, learning math, listening to lectures, doing lab work, writing papers. This hard work is important[/b], scientists are not just learning knowledge, they are developing skills. You can't advance real science in any meaningful way without this.

Sure you can. An 8-year old can ask a meaningful question and thus stimulate valid scientific effort to answer the question.

Quote:
3. Crank Ideas hurt the public. Are you arguing that scientists shouldn't defend against crank ideas? That doesn't seem reasonable. Crank science sometimes have deadly effects, as in when people don't vaccinate their children.

Anti-vaxers think that science/medicine that pushes vaccination without considering harmful side-effects is 'crank science.' Conflicting ideas shouldn't eclipse each other, so that people can think for themselves about them and what others have to say against them.

Quote:
4. Science is done in an ivory tower, there is no other way to do it. The alternative is that anyone can just come up with their own crazy ideas and call it science. If you read the idiotic posts here about 4th dimensional quantum foam.... scientists don't have time to answer this nonsense, they are busy doing real science.

I have no problem with the ivory tower, but no one should be using ridicule and negativity online to stifle open public discussion because it isn't happening within the ivory tower and thus isn't contributing to the funding of academic professionals.

Quote:
I think the hostility you are feeling is justified; not toward you, but toward your rather ridiculous ideas about science. Yes you are wrong.

Even if it was, it would be scientifically irresponsible to discourage me from further learning. The scientifically responsible thing to do would be to respond to things I say you consider false by posting information you consider better.

Quote:
What should a real scientists do when someone keep arguing pseudo-scientific nonsense? A real scientist can try to explain how you are wrong.... I have never seen any of you change your mind (if you can point to an example where you have accepted an actual scientific explanation ... I would love to see it).

They don't have to convince me I'm wrong, but rather to teach/explain what they believe to be right and let the reader be the judge of whether their explanation makes sense and/or to otherwise take it into account in their own thought process.

Quote:
There are right answers in science. There are wrong answers in science. There is real science. There is fake science. Real science is done by real scientists. I feel that is very important to make this distinction.

Science changes so some fake science is done by real scientists and only later recognized as fake/pseudo science.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2020 04:53 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

1. If you don't spend the years it takes to master differential equations you can't be a real Physicists or Chemist or Geologist or master most types of hard science. That is just a fact that we can not change. Quantum Physics starts with Schrodinger's equation. If you can't understand this... then anything you claim to understand about Quantum Physics is nonsense.

There are books available at public libraries that explain quantum physics well enough for me to dispute your claim about Schrodinger and say that quantum physics starts with the realization that photons and electron orbitals aren't continuous spectra but rather quantized so that only certain photon frequencies are compatible with certain electron jumps according to the absorption spectrum of a given element/substance.

Schrodinger wave collapse is also important, but quantum physics doesn't start there.


Quote:

The answer is to make an advanced education accessible to a broader group of people. You can't dumb down science just to get more people involved.

First of all, when you go do research on science at a public library, you will notice that there are better and worse books when it comes to explaining the actual ideas and research behind the big names of science.

In other words, some people do dumb down science to get more people involved, often to the point of rendering the science meaningless.

Second, you don't have to dumb down science to engage in open critical public discourse. All you have to do is stick to explaining/clarifying what others' say that you disagree with; instead of turning internet discussions about science into orgies of ridicule and negativity.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2020 04:55 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
Anti-vaxers think that science/medicine that pushes vaccination without considering harmful side-effects is 'crank science.' Conflicting ideas shouldn't eclipse each other, so that people can think for themselves about them and what others have to say against them.


In the vaccination "debate" one side is right, and the other side is wrong. If we choose one policy we will save kids from preventable disease. If we choose the other policy more kids will die from preventable deaths.

People "thinking for themselves" rather than listening to science has real consequences... science can measure the number of kids lives that are lost.

I have no problem with "public discourse", if at the end the public accepts the correct answer. But this "public discourse" is for the sake of educating the public. It is not for the sake of science.

Vaccinate your kids.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2020 05:10 pm
@livinglava,
If you studied Physics in a University... probably in your third year you would take your first Quantum Physics class. Here you would study actual Quantum physics based on the mathematics you have been mastering. You would realize the papers written by Einstein and Bohr, and DeBroglie and Schrodinger that started Quantum Physics were based on mathematics, and the ideas were all mathematical. This is why every serious Physics Student masters two years of advanced mathematics before diving into Quantum Physics.

There are three problems with your premise that "books in a library" are a replacement for University study.

1) You are reading books that are based on mathematics... they are giving English descriptions of Mathematical work. They are summaries at best and open to misinterpretation. All of the real work from Einstein's paper on the Photoelectric effect onward were mathematical.

2) You start with misconceptions... and then you can cherry pick the parts of books that reinforce your misconceptions. In University you need to prove our ideas mathematically or they fail, and you are challenged by peers and professors to push on your existing preconceptions.

Your idea that you can master science by having a summary description of the mathematics, without learning the mathematics yourself, is wrong-headed.

There is no way for me to prove you wrong that you will accept... because I speak to you in mathematics. Which is why it is impossible for either Farmerman or me to teach you anything.


livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2020 05:15 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
Anti-vaxers think that science/medicine that pushes vaccination without considering harmful side-effects is 'crank science.' Conflicting ideas shouldn't eclipse each other, so that people can think for themselves about them and what others have to say against them.


In the vaccination "debate" one side is right, and the other side is wrong. If we choose one policy we will save kids from preventable disease. If we choose the other policy more kids will die from preventable deaths.

What do you think about the anti-vaxer claim that vaccinations also have negative consequences for health despite the immediate benefit of immunizing people against certain diseases?

Quote:
People "thinking for themselves" rather than listening to science has real consequences... science can measure the number of kids lives that are lost.

Statistics can also measure the number of kids' lives lost in motor-vehicle crashes, but does that cause motor-vehicles to be outlawed or even restricted to those who absolutely can't function without one?

And, btw, it is statistics not 'science' that counts numbers of things like child deaths. Science can use statistical results to help answer a research question, but the science lies in figuring out how the statistics apply to the research question, not in the data-gathering or number-crunching that produces the statistics themselves.

Quote:
I have no problem with "public discourse", if at the end the public accepts the correct answer. But this "public discourse" is for the sake of educating the public. It is not for the sake of science.

Vaccinate your kids.

If there are critiques about vaccination, people need to understand science to evaluate both sides of the critique.

Merely accepting that "science says to vaccinate" doesn't involve learning any actual science about vaccination or otherwise.

maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2020 05:21 pm
@livinglava,
Bullshit! It doesn't matter if people understand the science or not, as long as they vaccinate their kids. We are not going to teach every American parent about epidemiology. We are going to tell them whatever we need to tell them to get them to do the right thing for their kids.

You don't understand how semiconductors work or logic gates, and yet you are using the internet. You don't understand how airplanes work, or fuel injection. Modern society depends on experts.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2020 05:26 pm
@maxdancona,
In modern society we depend on experts.

I was involved in a court case a few years back. And I mentioned to the lawyer something about "privilege" based on my understanding that conversations between lawyer/client doctor/patient etc couldn't be discussed in court. The lawyer shouted "No!", told me to shut up and then lectured me about the clients who want to play lawyer. The fact is I am not a lawyer. There are things that I have read, or seen on TV, or just believe should be true that are wrong.

This is the reason I always hire a lawyer. He is the expert. I am not. I shut up. I listen to him because by myself I would almost certainly get myself into trouble.

I am also not an airplane pilot, a US soldier, a fireman or a professional quarterback. I have no trouble accepting this.


0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2020 05:30 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

If you studied Physics in a University... probably in your third year you would take your first Quantum Physics class. Here you would study actual Quantum physics based on the mathematics you have been mastering. You would realize the papers written by Einstein and Bohr, and DeBroglie and Schrodinger that started Quantum Physics were based on mathematics, and the ideas were all mathematical. This is why every serious Physics Student masters two years of advanced mathematics before diving into Quantum Physics.

I forget who it was that discovered the emissions/absorption spectra were quantized, but you can understand that without complex math - and when you read that Bohr had to give up his notion that the electron would continously emit light where spiraling into the nucleus if not for quantization also makes sense without complex math.

Face it, you are just so obsessed with academic status hierarchy that you deny the reality of what these ideas are really about beyond the math of them.

Math boosts the self-confidence of people who are good at it, so it's very hard for them to take a step back and see how science can be understood without (much) math.

Quote:
There are three problems with your premise that "books in a library" are a replacement for University study.

I never said anything about replacing university study. I simply know that not everyone is going to spend the money it costs to go (back) to university, so library books are a good free resource.

Quote:
1) You are reading books that are based on mathematics... they are giving English descriptions of Mathematical work. They are summaries at best and open to misinterpretation. All of the real work from Einstein's paper on the Photoelectric effect onward were mathematical.

It doesn't matter. What matters is that you understand photons can cause electrons to jump between orbitals and cause electric current. Even a basic online video on the photoelectric effect will tell you that high frequency photons cause the effect while low frequency photons don't. There are quantifiable reasons for that, but understanding the basic fact that red is a lower frequency photon than blue is not difficult.

Quote:
2) You start with misconceptions... and then you can cherry pick the parts of books that reinforce your misconceptions. In University you need to prove our ideas mathematically or they fail, and you are challenged by peers and professors to push on your existing preconceptions.

Anyone can do what you're saying. That is why they should post their reasoning and listen to (constructive) criticism about it.

Quote:
Your idea that you can master science by having a summary description of the mathematics, without learning the mathematics yourself, is wrong-headed.

You don't need to master science to read and think about it critically, though you might end up mastering some ideas in the process of studying and thinking critically about them.

Quote:
There is no way for me to prove you wrong that you will accept... because I speak to you in mathematics. Which is why it is impossible for either Farmerman or me to teach you anything.

You can't prove a person wrong. You can only prove testable hypotheses wrong. 2+2=5 is wrong, but a person who worked the problem can't be proven wrong without showing why 2+2=4 is right.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2020 05:36 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Bullshit! It doesn't matter if people understand the science or not, as long as they vaccinate their kids. We are not going to teach every American parent about epidemiology. We are going to tell them whatever we need to tell them to get them to do the right thing for their kids.

You're talking about vaccination, not science-teaching.

Take the example of pregnant women taking Thalidomide for nausea in the 1950s who ended up with their babies having birth defects. You could say they didn't need to understand science to take medicine against nausea, but then the unwanted side-effects of the drug were also unknown.

Quote:
You don't understand how semiconductors work or logic gates, and yet you are using the internet. You don't understand how airplanes work, or fuel injection. Modern society depends on experts.

The point is that if anti-vaxers want to study reasons vaccines might be bad in some ways, they should; and people like you shouldn't discourage them from doing so in the name of 'science.'

People should learn science and think critically and not just blindly accept things because self-proclaimed scientists tell them to.

You are an authoritarian and science is fundamentally anti-authoritarian by virtue of its emergence as critical questioning of established church doctrines in the middle ages.

maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2020 05:37 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
I forget who it was that discovered the emissions/absorption spectra were quantized, but you can understand that without complex math


No, you can not understand this without complex math. Ironically, the example you gave is mathematical. Your very phrase of "electron spiraling into the nucleus" is based on a mathematical function. If you don't understand the mathematical function...

1) You are taking his word for it (the very thing you say you don't want to do)

2) You run the risk that you maybe be misunderstanding the English phrase. A mathematical function can be objectively tested. There is no way to precisely test an English phrase.

You can not do science without a mastery of mathematics.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2020 05:43 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
The point is that if anti-vaxers want to study reasons vaccines might be bad in some ways, they should; and people like you shouldn't discourage them from doing so in the name of 'science.'

People should learn science and think critically and not just blindly accept things because self-proclaimed scientists tell them to.

You are an authoritarian and science is fundamentally anti-authoritarian by virtue of its emergence as critical questioning of established church doctrines in the middle ages.


Science is absolutely authoritarian. There are right answers. There are wrong answers.

When Science faced the church, it didn't come to some "let's just agree that we are both right" thing. No! We all say. Science was right. The Church was wrong. The Earth moves. There are moons around Jupiter. No scientist now accepts questioning, from the church or from anyone else on the fact that the Earth orbits the sun.

You have some strange view that everyone can be right in science. That isn't how it works.

If some cranks on the internet say that vaccines cause autism (in spite of the fact scientists have studied this and determined that they don't)... science has no obligation to humor them. Cranks are cranks.

If people come up with some real evidence that hasn't been seen before, then scientists will look at it (and they should). Opening up a new investigation based on compelling new evidence is part of science. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2020 06:00 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Science is absolutely authoritarian. There are right answers. There are wrong answers.

Right and wrong answer do not authoritarianism make. Authoritarianism is when right and wrong answers are decreed without explaining the reason they are right/wrong and imploring the reader to assess right/wrong for themselves using their own innate capacity for logical reasoning.

E.g. if you told me that 8x8=64 and that's just a fact I have to accept, that would be authoritarian. If, however, I questioned you and you told me to add 8+8+8+8+8+8+8+8=64, then I would understand multiplication and see why 8x8=64 for myself.

Quote:
When Science faced the church, it didn't come to some "let's just agree that we are both right" thing. No! We all say. Science was right. The Church was wrong. The Earth moves. There are moons around Jupiter. No scientist now accepts questioning, from the church or from anyone else on the fact that the Earth orbits the sun.

Some things are wrong, but you have to explain why they are wrong; not just insist by reference to professional/academic status or consensus or other groundless authority claims.

2+2=4 not because mathematicians say so but because ** + ** = **** and you can count the asterisks for yourself.

Quote:
You have some strange view that everyone can be right in science. That isn't how it works.

Anyone who can count can be right in addition.

Quote:
If some cranks on the internet say that vaccines cause autism (in spite of the fact scientists have studied this and determined that they don't)... science has no obligation to humor them. Cranks are cranks.

Science isn't the judge/jury; it is the defense attorney or prosecutor who makes a case to the jury. In fact, science is the case the attorney makes, not the attorneys themselves.

Quote:
If people come up with some real evidence that hasn't been seen before, then scientists will look at it (and they should). Opening up a new investigation based on compelling new evidence is part of science. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I've listened to this authoritarian science nonsense for too long. You talking about who has the burden of proof and who has the right to reject it is just territorial power-brokering; not science.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2020 06:06 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
Right and wrong answer do not authoritarianism make. Authoritarianism is when right and wrong answers are decreed without explaining the reason they are right/wrong and imploring the reader to assess right/wrong for themselves using their own innate capacity for logical reasoning.

E.g. if you told me that 8x8=64 and that's just a fact I have to accept, that would be authoritarian. If, however, I questioned you and you told me to add 8+8+8+8+8+8+8+8=64, then I would understand multiplication and see why 8x8=64 for myself.


This is exactly right. You are proving my point.

You can check that 8 x 8 = 64 because in this case you have a good enough knowledge of the mathematics involved to check for yourself. Presumably you learned about addition and multiplication in a mathematics class that likely involved lectures and problem sets.

This is a perfect example of where you have a level of expertise. There is a right answer and wrong answers. And you can check if for yourself and confirm that this is the right answer.

Now if someone who didn't understand what addition was and didn't want to take the time to learn it told you that 8 x 8 = 61, how would you explain to them that they were wrong? You can do the counting all you want, if they don't accept how you know addition works, that isn't going to convince them.

Are you an authoritarian in the case of 8 x 8 = 64, or are you willing to consider different answers.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jan, 2020 06:20 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

This is exactly right. You are proving my point.

You can check that 8 x 8 = 64 because in this case you have a good enough knowledge of the mathematics involved to check for yourself. Presumably you learned about addition and multiplication in a mathematics class that likely involved lectures and problem sets.

This is a perfect example of where you have a level of expertise. There is a right answer and wrong answers. And you can check if for yourself and confirm that this is the right answer.

Now if someone who didn't understand what addition was and didn't want to take the time to learn it told you that 8 x 8 = 61, how would you explain to them that they were wrong? You can do the counting all you want, if they don't accept how you know addition works, that isn't going to convince them.

Are you an authoritarian in the case of 8 x 8 = 64, or are you willing to consider different answers.

It's not authoritarian to know the right answer and explain it. It's authoritarian to dismiss the need for understanding in accepting what's right, or to dismiss different perspectives without listening to them and giving them fair consideration.

Math is a bad example because it is obvious to anyone who understand multiplication why 8x8=64 and not 61. But when you are dealing with more complex scientific claims and theories, you should be aware of what the claims/theories are based on.

Take universal expansion, for example. It is based on Hubble's observation that there was uniform redshift in all galaxies. That pattern was then interpreted as an indication that those galaxies are moving away from the Milky Way.

If someone wants to question whether there is some other explanation for the redshift pattern, that's legitimate. We don't yet have any way to confirm that those galaxies are moving away, e.g. by sending probes and measuring the time it takes for them to arrive and return. So there is no data to prove some alternative hypothesis wrong; it's simply a question of speculation.

Whenever you raise such issues for discussion with authoritarian scientists, though, they usually immediately start talking about not wanting to throw out existing theory, etc. as if you have to throw out a theory to formulate/consider alternatives.

It really comes down to people who would rather argue about agreeing with what's mainstream instead of practicing critical thinking about how to deal scientifically with dissent, i.e. by fleshing out what we know, how we know it, and what other interpretations are (im)possible for data and why or why not.

A good science teacher explores knowledge and how it is known/understood; while an authoritarian teacher just insists that the right answer be accepted without questioning/understanding because it's the right answer.

Now, having said that I will agree with you that there are classroom situations that just don't lend themselves to in-depth discussion of knowledge because of time constraints and/or other issues that require students just get through memorizing the basic dogma so that they have something to question and analyze later when there is time for that. In that case, you should explain that questioning leads to deeper learning but there's no time for it at the moment. You should say that not as a clever way of dismissing questioning, but mean it sincerely because you truly understand how questioning and critical thinking lead people to interact with received knowledge in a way that understands it for what it is, how it was arrived at, etc. so that they can see that science is a process of theory-building and not scientists coming down from the mountain with set-in-stone facts that magically appeared as gems of truth from thin air.

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jan, 2020 04:17 pm
@maxdancona,
Nothing gives a science teacher a better sense of having had a great career, is to see his or her many students whove pursued the same craft , really succeed.
Having someone dedicate their theses to you is like a real blessing .
To consider them colleagues an. hopefully, friends, is like seeing your own kids grow up and leave the nest as successful adults.

livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jan, 2020 05:30 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Nothing gives a science teacher a better sense of having had a great career, is to see his or her many students whove pursued the same craft , really succeed.
Having someone dedicate their theses to you is like a real blessing .
To consider them colleagues an. hopefully, friends, is like seeing your own kids grow up and leave the nest as successful adults.

Anyone who mentors apprentices in any profession could say the same. There's nothing scientific about any of this.
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Ridicule in Online Science Discussions
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/25/2020 at 12:14:16