A wide-ranging conversation on publishing science, the resignation of presidents at 3 top universities, the role of generative A.I., weighing in on controversies, and much more
Great discussion. I particularly appreciated Holden Thorpe’s observations about academic and science journal handling of fact vs. opinion, as in this quote: “I think that it's within bounds for academic colleagues and even institutions to call out their colleagues who are not expressing an opinion, but are challenging scientific facts without doing experiments and submitting papers and having lots of people look at it and doing all the stuff that we require in order to change scientific consensus.” I have the sense that sometimes “free speech” is used inappropriately on campuses in that administrators seem to think they can’t address misinformation at all, because it’s speech. That’s of course highly problematic, particularly in an educational setting. Universities are not required, it seems to me, to give flat earthers a university platform, or, at the very least, if they decide to do that, the only way to make it a truly educational experience is to assure the flat earther shares a platform with someone who knows the facts.
Thanks, too, Dr. Topol, for providing these well organized transcripts (for which I suspect you used AI). They are really helpful, and value-added.
An in-depth discussion that is incredibly informative. The final exchange about what constitutes protected free speech has to be viewed in the context of homes opinion that shouting fire in a crowded theater is not protected Speech. I would argue that making public statements in the midst of a life-threatening pandemic that vaccines are dangerous and not helpful is similar.
The discussion about who is a scientist is also fascinating. I don’t know if you have children, but how often do we say about children who are just becoming verbal and running around and inspecting everything that they are a little scientist. I think that is a profound statement. The child is discovering reality and trying to understand how and why it works. The child has no intent to deceive. The child has no ambition to win a Nobel prize. She does not have to publish or perish. There are, of course, limitations to the child’s ability to solve the problems they confront. But what they are doing is the first step towards being a scientist.
Thank you Eric for your stimulating, informative, honest articles. Most importantly, articles that help people who listen lead, healthier better lives.
As a NC State alum, was glad to hear Holden admit that UNC athletes had been cheating since he was in middle school! Ha! On a serious note, great interview, thanks to both for the discussion.
Quoted from above: "And the first one of those was when we decided that it was okay, for example, if you are not an English speaker natively to have ChatGPT work on your pros." I've worked extensively with people for whom English is a second language, and so I'm somewhat sympathetic to this thinking, but ultimately I think it's a bad idea. Allowing ChatGPT to "work on your pros"---that should've said "prose," which tends to underscore my point here---is, I fear, to go down a slippery slope that will undermine the integrity and credibility of these journals.
Great discussion. I particularly appreciated Holden Thorpe’s observations about academic and science journal handling of fact vs. opinion, as in this quote: “I think that it's within bounds for academic colleagues and even institutions to call out their colleagues who are not expressing an opinion, but are challenging scientific facts without doing experiments and submitting papers and having lots of people look at it and doing all the stuff that we require in order to change scientific consensus.” I have the sense that sometimes “free speech” is used inappropriately on campuses in that administrators seem to think they can’t address misinformation at all, because it’s speech. That’s of course highly problematic, particularly in an educational setting. Universities are not required, it seems to me, to give flat earthers a university platform, or, at the very least, if they decide to do that, the only way to make it a truly educational experience is to assure the flat earther shares a platform with someone who knows the facts.
Thanks, too, Dr. Topol, for providing these well organized transcripts (for which I suspect you used AI). They are really helpful, and value-added.
An in-depth discussion that is incredibly informative. The final exchange about what constitutes protected free speech has to be viewed in the context of homes opinion that shouting fire in a crowded theater is not protected Speech. I would argue that making public statements in the midst of a life-threatening pandemic that vaccines are dangerous and not helpful is similar.
The discussion about who is a scientist is also fascinating. I don’t know if you have children, but how often do we say about children who are just becoming verbal and running around and inspecting everything that they are a little scientist. I think that is a profound statement. The child is discovering reality and trying to understand how and why it works. The child has no intent to deceive. The child has no ambition to win a Nobel prize. She does not have to publish or perish. There are, of course, limitations to the child’s ability to solve the problems they confront. But what they are doing is the first step towards being a scientist.
Thank you Eric for your stimulating, informative, honest articles. Most importantly, articles that help people who listen lead, healthier better lives.
As a NC State alum, was glad to hear Holden admit that UNC athletes had been cheating since he was in middle school! Ha! On a serious note, great interview, thanks to both for the discussion.
Quoted from above: "And the first one of those was when we decided that it was okay, for example, if you are not an English speaker natively to have ChatGPT work on your pros." I've worked extensively with people for whom English is a second language, and so I'm somewhat sympathetic to this thinking, but ultimately I think it's a bad idea. Allowing ChatGPT to "work on your pros"---that should've said "prose," which tends to underscore my point here---is, I fear, to go down a slippery slope that will undermine the integrity and credibility of these journals.