Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Tech Talk / Re: Wierd issue with an inverter?
« Last post by amysrevenge on Today at 10:35:02 AM »
Probably?  It's cheap enough that you're not screwed if you buy it and it doesn't help.
2
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #674
« Last post by Zec on Today at 09:10:05 AM »
“we” don’t have the term. I’ve never heard of it before
3
Oh, neat. I'll amend my statement, I hope she gets invited back sometime. Those episodes are positively ancient now. Are they still worth a listen?

People who should know better coddling Joe happens surprisingly often. As has been mentioned already, the recent episode with Michael Shermer has him nodding his head quite often to all kinds of dubious things.
4
That in itself is a matter of opinion of course, but you are painting it as if people are just criticising you for enjoying his show.

I get what the criticism is. But without data it comes down to opinion and anecdote. I'm not sure how to move forward other than everyone restating their opinion and their anecdotes for 18 more pages.
5
When some of the posters here are done beating the poor straw man down, we could perhaps start having a useful conversation. That's why I'm here.

You're naive.  You obviously know nothing about how science works.  Almost all science is incremental, and almost all scientific articles are reports of incremental advances.  Of course, "transformative" findings occasionally are discovered.  But they are by their very nature unusual and represent a tiny fraction of published journal articles.

In your last published science paper, how many references did you make to incremental studies and how many to transformative ones?

My last paper cited 65 publications.  At most 1 was "transformative."

Quote
In your last successful grant proposal how much did you talk about small tweaks you made in your techniques and how much about big and broad changes?

Never wrote a grant.  I can ask my girlfriend about hers when she gets back into town, but she's a very eminent scientist, so her answers are not likely to be typical. 

Quote
I'm trying to say that the "design" of science progress at the moment is dubious. That it ought to be at least pondered about. Sure, most articles are about small variations of other studies. But a lot of those papers are destined to be read by a handful of people. There is no system of integration of small tweaks which makes the integration of big changes difficult and lengthy.

My experience is the opposite.  Everybody working in a field knows what everybody else in the field is working on.  They go to the same conferences and read the same journals.

Quote
The entire narrative of the scientific method is that a breakthrough idea occurs, usually due to a single individual.  The idea is tested and if successful, after, more often than not, a surprisingly long amount of time is accepted within the larger scientific community.

That may be the narrative promoted in the popular media, but it's not a very accurate portrayal of the scientific method.

Feel free to enlighten me. My experience in academia so far supported the view above.

You're what, a grad student?  You've published, what, one paper?  Maybe your lab sucks.  Maybe your whole field, whatever it is, sucks.  Be careful about generalizing from a small, possibly unrepresentative sample.
6
When some of the posters here are done beating the poor straw man down, we could perhaps start having a useful conversation. That's why I'm here.

You're naive.  You obviously know nothing about how science works.  Almost all science is incremental, and almost all scientific articles are reports of incremental advances.  Of course, "transformative" findings occasionally are discovered.  But they are by their very nature unusual and represent a tiny fraction of published journal articles.

In your last published science paper, how many references did you make to incremental studies and how many to transformative ones? In your last successful grant proposal how much did you talk about small tweaks you made in your techniques and how much about big and broad changes?
I'm trying to say that the "design" of science progress at the moment is dubious. That it ought to be at least pondered about. Sure, most articles are about small variations of other studies. But a lot of those papers are destined to be read by a handful of people. There is no system of integration of small tweaks which makes the integration of big changes difficult and lengthy.

The entire narrative of the scientific method is that a breakthrough idea occurs, usually due to a single individual.  The idea is tested and if successful, after, more often than not, a surprisingly long amount of time is accepted within the larger scientific community.

That may be the narrative promoted in the popular media, but it's not a very accurate portrayal of the scientific method.

Feel free to enlighten me. My experience in academia so far supported the view above.
7
Forum Games / Re: Visual Counting
« Last post by ella on Today at 01:48:24 AM »
8
Tech Talk / Re: Amazon Account Closed?
« Last post by Keo_Mitchell on Today at 12:23:32 AM »
I have called them five times. . . .

Gross. That sort of narrows down what you can and can't do. It sounds like it is an Amazon side problem and if they can't figure it out you won't be able to as well; unless you dissect their code and do their debugging for them. If you end up fixing the problem doing the later DEMAND MONEY! :P Sorry mate but keep trying or move on with setting up a new account.

Good Luck.
9
General Discussion / Re: Firearm Owner Thread
« Last post by Keo_Mitchell on Today at 12:17:07 AM »
Skeptiqueer, thanks for the detailed recommendations. I might wait on the semiauto shotgun, because I think I'm hooked on the looks of an over/under, I honestly completely forgot about looking into the used market. Thanks again.
10
Let me expand a bit. The entire narrative of the scientific method is that a breakthrough idea occurs, usually due to a single individual. The idea is tested and if successful, after, more often than not, a surprisingly long amount of time is accepted within the larger scientific community. Surely we can recognize that this is all a bit aged. Science as a community swell and diversified, yet we still track single breakthrough through publications. I am not talking here about the poor statistical some scientists display in their studies. This is a whole different and disappointing problem. I am also not specifically referring to the positive results bias journals unashamedly boast. (which by the way hard sciences had done nothing to remedy)

I want to talk here about the neglected incremental science. The paper I pointed at looked at bits of code development and shows, among other, that most of the code improvement is small tweaks. It is not outlandish to suggest that most science is small and incremental improvements and even maintenance of tools, techniques and ideas. Yet we never hear of it. It does not bring in grant money. It is not publishable. There is no system that I know of to support it. Which means sometimes (more often than you'd think) the wheel gets reinvented (see https://fliptomato.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/medical-researcher-discovers-integration-gets-75-citations/).

Call me naive, but I feel the science world would be a better place if we could make it work like a huge github open repository. The way it works at the moment is definitely counterproductive.  The fact that breakthroughs are so shortsightedly important raises rivality not only between groups woking on the same science with the same techniques but also within the same group... Seen it with my eyes.

The scientific method is at fault for focusing on the simplified version of science where a block of knowledge is made of individual breakthroughs with no mention to the incremental work necessary to hold everything together. I demand recognition for small improvements, for efficiency increase, for code upgrade, method checked against another method... For all those things grant application write somewhere in a footnote, but should be able to stand alone as the essential tasks that they are.

Rant over

You're naive.  You obviously know nothing about how science works.  Almost all science is incremental, and almost all scientific articles are reports of incremental advances.  Of course, "transformative" findings occasionally are discovered.  But they are by their very nature unusual and represent a tiny fraction of published journal articles.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10