5 ms·
That's a fair point. I'm trying to draw a distinction between "speculative" research (which might pan out long term) and "industry-focused" research (which trie
by mdwelsh 11y ago
That's a fair point. I'm trying to draw a distinction between "speculative" research (which might pan out long term) and "industry-focused" research (which tries to solve problems we have today). My concern is not with speculative research -- that's great -- but rather flawed industry-focused research: making incorrect assumptions, failing to deal with the general case, not considering real-world constraints.
- incepted 11y ago> making incorrect assumptions If it was easy to know when you make incorrect assumptions, nobody would.
- mdwelsh 11y agoWell, the whole point of my post is to give some tips on how not to.
- s986s 11y agoHonestly, if the academics didnt choose their research the private industry wouldnt have to hire r and d. This sounds more of a ploy to save costs by having academics build for the industry on government money than to hire people to further a companies interests.
- gradstudent 11y ago> but rather flawed industry-focused research: making incorrect assumptions, failing to deal with the general case, not considering real-world constraints. I find this point rather condescending. What you term "incorrect assumptions" are often necessary simplifications that reveal the core of the problem at hand. The point is to try and understand what makes problems hard and to develop new ways of solving them; not to deliver to companies like Google ready-made solutions that cater to their every operational need. Don't like that? Too bad. Fund your own research.
- mdwelsh 11y agoNo, I mean incorrect assumptions. It doesn't matter if we're talking research in industry or academia; doing research based on flawed (not simplifying) assumptions is bad science.
- gradstudent 11y agoIf you want to make a concrete point about bad science then do it. At the moment however you are not making that point. Your argument is that "the assumptions" (whatever those are; you provide no specifics) made by researchers don't match up with industry expectations; a wholly different point for which I have little sympathy. In my opinion the scientific authors doing the work are in the best position to judge what assumptions are and are not appropriate for their work. If the science is bad we expect the community to pick up on that via peer review or in a subsequent publication.
- mdwelsh 11y agoI was originally going to list examples of bad industry-focused science in the original post, but decided against it, since I didn't want to offend anyone. Your username is "gradstudent", suggesting you have read a few papers. My bet is that you've read papers where you scratch your head and say, "is that really how things work?" I read lots and lots of those papers - usually they don't end up getting published.
- cushychicken 11y ago>My bet is that you've read papers where you scratch your head and say, "is that really how things work?" I read lots and lots of those papers That sort of contextualizes your post as a long winded statement of "My job is hard".