These are people from academia which have (surprise) no pet theory and which are glad to have finally found the pristine area of knowledge and truth in science. It is a curious phenomenon that actually many scientists have interest in fringe topics, have experienced something strange or, God forbid, do believe that something may be partly true. Academic people may forgive your interest in an arcane topic like panspermia, but defending creationism or parapsychology (even if you only correct a false argument from a skeptic) paints a very big red cross hair on your chest. The worst thing you can do is engage in a public hot topic on the wrong side. A person outside academia asking about a fringe topic may be tolerated, but for fellows the patience is very thin. In contrast to their projected image to the public (openness to inquiry) scientists at large are acting within their community mostly intolerant to fringe topics. If you, on the other hand, are genuinely interested in a fringe topic generally and communicate so, you will very likely experience that your reputation goes down very quickly, especially in STEM fields. It could be inside or outside of a subject's area, from a curio to outright bizarre. Almost every scientist has one, these theories are stroked and caressed and their range is unpredictable. The most common, I would even say reliable, occurence that you will encounter in the open is a pet theory. If you are negatively inclined (skeptic blog) or sarcastic (CAUTION: Poes's Law), you will very likely experience no problems, the worst will be that some people scold you for wasting your time. It really depends how the interaction with "fringe" topics occur. The problem is general and does not only apply to graduate school application.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |