4 ms·
Actually, you're ignoring the author. He said that his publication successes drove him away from the system: I have never been afraid of failures and of r
by toomim 11y ago
Actually, you're ignoring the author. He said that his publication successes drove him away from the system:
I have never been afraid of failures and of retrying, and retrying again;
my scientific successes are what discouraged me, because I know how they
were obtained.
My most important scientific articles were accepted in major journals
because the editors had a favorable prejudice toward me or my co-authors;
because I was insuring that I had a discussion with them before I submitted;
or because the reviewers they chose happened to be close colleagues.
You presume that he wouldn't "air dirty laundry" if he got a tenure-track position. But this ignores what he just said! Every academic success he achieved made him discouraged and want to leave. You aren't listening to him.
Why do you call this "dirty laundry"? He addresses that too:
Some of my best friends at Duke have told me that I sounded "bitter" when I
expressed these concerns. I insure you that I am not and that I am writing
these lines with the nonchalance and bliss of a man who has found other ways
to be happy and to satisfy his own scientific curiosity.
You aren't listening to him.
Look, every time an academic leaves, the existing academics try to point out his lack of career success. It makes it easier for you to dismiss him.
But that train of thought is flawed. By simple logic, the honest participants in corrupt systems WILL fail to succeed. These are the people to listen to! The honest scientists, with sound arguments, and poor publication records.
- w1ntermute 11y ago> You aren't listening to him. That's right, rather than taking his words at face value, I investigated the facts that he omitted from his narrative. They tell a slightly different story. None of that means that I don't share his opinions about the state of academic science.
- toomim 11y agoI love new information, but your narrative conflicts with the existing facts: - He is not bitter - He did not leave because of failure Now it appears you aren't listening to me, because I've had to write this twice.
- w1ntermute 11y agoThat's not factual evidence, that's a subjective narrative that he's constructed, one which the factual evidence contradicts. The one who actually isn't listening in this situation is you, because I've also had to state this twice.
- toomim 11y agoFeelings are not subjective narratives; especially if you're a neuroscientist. They are physiological, measurable, and observable. When the author says he does not feel bitter, it is an account on his physiological state. Are you calling him a liar? When the author says he felt discouraged after success, that is a report on an empirical phenomenon. Do you believe he is lying? If you think he's lying, then you don't trust him. Maybe you don't trust him because you only trust people who publish a lot. Shame on you.
- w1ntermute 11y ago> Feelings are not subjective narratives; especially if you're a neuroscientist. They are physiological, measurable, and observable. Ah yes, because his post consisted of statistically rigorous measurements of his mental state to back up his statements, rather than a polemic against the nature of the academic system. Now, in which figure in his post did you see a plot of those measurements of his feelings, again? I'm having a little difficulty locating it. > When the author says he felt discouraged after success, that is a report on an empirical phenomenon. Do you believe he is lying? He does not have significant academic success to speak of, so his statement doesn't make logical sense. That's all I'm saying. Resorting to strawmen like claiming I believe he's lying or that I don't trust him detracts from the credibility of your argument.
- danso 11y agoThose "facts" are provided by the narrator himself. Unless you have some kind of psychic bond with the narrator, or can argue a priori why the phenomenon of "unreliable narrator" simply does not apply here, then these facts don't really address w1ntermute's line of argument.