The amount of retractions has
10x'd in the last decade so being "published" and "peer reviewed" to lose a lot of weight.
True and a very worrying trend. The repeatability crisis is another problem too. The churning output of paper mills and AI written content may also be contributing. But I agree. We can only hope that the self-correcting nature of scientific practice (when done right) eventually uncovers these faults and corrects for their pitfalls.
It's a little alarming how science at the highest level of ivy league and Government entities getting caught coming up with conclusions and getting the data to fit.
It's alarming for sure. Scientists are just people after all and tend to be susceptible to all the allures of fame and a positive social image.
Some small corrections. 1 paper in Nature. The other looks like Nature Chemistry which although still prestigious is not the same thing.
My mistake, thanks for pointing that out. I admit that I just skimmed his list and didn't go into many of the details (much like Thunderf00t himself).
But its ambitious grad student or professor prestigious (I think a Nature/Science/Cell paper is a soft requirement for getting hired as a professor in certain higher tier universities) not necessarily market changing prestigious.
That's true, but I would add that this is a characteristic of the average Joe scientist. The majority of people won't be outputting market changing technologies. Some of these researchers spend their whole career working on a small part of something that
might become a major discovery, technology, or solution to an unknown problem. It's a grind as you point out.
Any one of Musk's major achievements far outstrips his and could define the entire career of a very successful prominent ceo or scientist.
Agreed. No dispute there.
Also his body of work in no way shows any considerable expertise with rocketry or space ship engineering.
Yes, you are right. I wouldn't necessarily be as concerned about this though. He clearly has an interest in the subject and has for some time. Predating his obsession with Musk. If someone has a grasp of the core science they can comment on a wide range of topics and provide valid inputs. Even if it is simply probing the surface level of a deeper problem. His obsession with Musk has led to some absolute reaches - there is no question - but some of his comments are valid. We do need the critics and the fans to keep debating to help refine and discover problems or solutions. Most of it is garbage, but some of it is useful. In the wider scheme of things it's just added dialogue I suppose.
What is irritating and strange about Thunderf00t is his lack of nuance and absolute positions against individuals he does not like. But if you have watched his content for any length of time, this is a feature, not a bug. The Starship stream was a perfect example. He almost couldn't even bring himself to acknowledge the achievement of the rocket catch. He was waiting for it to crash and burn. It is hard to take an objective position on something when you have such an emotional investment in one side.
I also don't fully get his costs argument. This applies to many frontier technologies. How many untold billions of dollars have been invested into quantum computing? These technologies are happening, it's a matter of when not if. The US needs to lead on them or someone else will.
