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