> > You think years of training, education and experience don't occur outside fancy journals?
> Literally nothing I said was about this.
Yes you did. Here is a copy of the comment you responded to:
""I wanna smoke what the gatekeepers are smoking. “No, you don’t understand science! It can come only from fancy journals. You cannot test the properties yourself!”. Meanwhile Varda goes brrr.""
You responded to that comment with:
""Yes, years of training, education, and experience is now "gatekeeping"""
The implication of your comment was that it's not gatekeeping to say that science can only come from fancy journals, because it takes years of training, education and experience to get to those fancy journals - and those years of bla bla are somehow an exclusive property of being in a fancy journal.
> We have a fun little situation where HN people, most of which barely know anything about superconductivity, or physics, or really anything outside of their webdev bubble, think that their random opinions on random news articles means anything. A 10 minute read of Wikipedia is now considered expertise. Obviously the random news article with low quality information is proof that room temp superconductivity is a real thing.
This was directed at me, as if I had presented myself as some kind of expert on superconductivity, or implied that I have some kind of valuable opinions on superconductivity. Where did I write anything that could be inferred in that direction? Nowhere! I disparaged your journal-worshipping, predatory-business-supporting, anti-science attitude. That's all. I didn't provide any opinions on superconductivity.
> Literally nothing I said was about this.
Yes you did. Here is a copy of the comment you responded to:
""I wanna smoke what the gatekeepers are smoking. “No, you don’t understand science! It can come only from fancy journals. You cannot test the properties yourself!”. Meanwhile Varda goes brrr.""
You responded to that comment with:
""Yes, years of training, education, and experience is now "gatekeeping"""
The implication of your comment was that it's not gatekeeping to say that science can only come from fancy journals, because it takes years of training, education and experience to get to those fancy journals - and those years of bla bla are somehow an exclusive property of being in a fancy journal.
> We have a fun little situation where HN people, most of which barely know anything about superconductivity, or physics, or really anything outside of their webdev bubble, think that their random opinions on random news articles means anything. A 10 minute read of Wikipedia is now considered expertise. Obviously the random news article with low quality information is proof that room temp superconductivity is a real thing.
This was directed at me, as if I had presented myself as some kind of expert on superconductivity, or implied that I have some kind of valuable opinions on superconductivity. Where did I write anything that could be inferred in that direction? Nowhere! I disparaged your journal-worshipping, predatory-business-supporting, anti-science attitude. That's all. I didn't provide any opinions on superconductivity.