Shane King wrote:
But that IS about who is more popular. We don't take each individual scientist, evaluate how good they are, and decide to rank their views according to that. Instead we shotgun it and say nearly everyone believes Albert not Gertie, so we'll declare him the winner.
*We* don't evaluate how good they are -- this is the job of their PhD programs.
At a more abstract level, I don't see why you think we can even evaluate credibility. You point out how we can't evaluate theories well because we're notnecessarily qualified to do so, and I agree with that. But if we can't evaluate those theories, how can we evaluate how well the people who do evaluate those theories are doing? That's what makes someone credible: they get things right. But if we can't work out what's right, how can we tell if they're getting it right?
Do you find this argument compelling? I don't.
I know next to nothing about physics personally. And yet, I'm very much qualified and confident to say that the views of faculty members at Harvard and MIT are _credible_, whereas the views of Achimedes Plutonium are not.
So, I can't evaluate theories of physics, and yet I am able to evaluate how well the people who do evaluate those theories are doing. Is this in any way astonishing?
Popularity. It's a popularity contest.
Popularity has nearly nothing to do with it. I have no idea what the general public thinks about physics, nor do I imagine it is very sensible or credible to worry much about it.
--Jimbo