• Tiger@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    I agree with you and don’t know why people pile on against you. Is the guy cringey? Sure. Would it be more useful to humanity if he just donated his money to existing and more reputable research? For sure. But he’s just tinkering on himself, which is his right, and shares what he learns.

    Is he misguided and a quack who may not learn anything? Maybe, but sometimes it’s the crazy folks who go against the grain that stumble on some good ideas.

    Also, if anything he tries is interesting, yes of course he’s just a sample size of 1 - the idea is that other people could research it further.

    (I think him roping other people in like his kid isn’t great)

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      he’s just a sample size of 1

      And also he seems to be mixing “experiments” concurrently. How does he know what worked and what didn’t if he has 30+ variables to account for all the time? xd

      • Tiger@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Hehe, he won’t know, it’s a messy method. The experiment is “does the kitchen sink approach of a 100 zany things do any good or not.” I’d guess not, actually,

    • futatorius@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      sometimes it’s the crazy folks who go against the grain that stumble on some good ideas

      The chances of that happening in real life are close to nil. Sometimes, people who actually know what they’re doing are mistaken or mischaracterized as crazy, but it’s not all that hard to distinguish them from cranks. And even among those with the technical or scientific competency to actually do things right, people often make wrong hypotheses. Science is hard.