6 ms·

I mean that's what Ph.D's do in most fields, the whole point of getting a Ph.D is so that you can do research in that field. Learning how to write well research

by criley2 11y ago

I mean that's what Ph.D's do in most fields, the whole point of getting a Ph.D is so that you can do research in that field. Learning how to write well researched white papers that can withstand peer review. Prior to that, you can do some research as perhaps with a Master's or as a graduate student, but usually you're assisting on a Ph.D's project. The process of getting a Ph.D in many fields is basically the process of learning how to research and report your research. So the idea of limiting high level research tools to those who've proven to be capable of high level research isn't that ridiculous to me. If you want to research for a living and report it, is it so ridiculous to ask that you train traditionally in researching and reporting?

kingkawn 11y ago
Yes but then we only find what we've been taught to see for the sake of institutional structure and wonder why life isn't more inspiring.
ACow_Adonis 11y ago
I will only speak for myself and people like me. Many of us have deliberately chosen not to go the Masters/PhD/Academic route because of how broken/backward we believe the academic system to be, and that we can have better access to both research, learnings, materials, methods, and just a general quality of life, both materially and intellectually, outside of it. That doesn't mean we're not interested in, or aren't doing, research. Indeed, we believe we're often doing it better. These edu/PhD requirements are incredibly frustrating, and there's no technical or intellectual reason they should exist: Only social, political and economic reasons. I know you did not mean any offence by posting your comment, and i do not mean any by mine, but to answer your question: "If you want to research for a living and report it, is it so ridiculous to ask that you train traditionally in researching and reporting?" Yes, yes it is. Research should not be for a closed shop of inward looking, often archaic and relatively backward academic institutions.
- stfu 11y ago
  But if you understand how the system works and it seems not surprising that you will face tougher challenges. I am not sure in how far this is different from rejecting the notion that a driving license is necessary to operate a car. You can certainly learn how to operate one yourself and be really good at it. But if your are a car rental company and want to reduce your liabilities it seems reasonable (but probably not fair) to let only people with a driving license rent one.
- criley2 11y ago
  >" and there's no technical or intellectual reason they should exist" I disagree with this completely, and I described the objective and intellectual reasons behind it in my other post! Very, very few people are capable of taking a post-graduate course-load and producing journal-quality research without any formal training. It's become a trope to dislike academia and to make the assumption that it is incapable of producing a result that is worthwhile (all while most of us in programming make intense, constant fundamental use of functions, ideas, algorithms, systems, etc that are the results of PhD in Computer Science or academia in general) The objective reason is that academia produces better researchers who are far better prepared to publish their results. The intellectual reason is that a system of learning statistics, experimental design, and a subject matter under the tutelage of a proven expert which requires the person to literally succeed in their job of researching and publishing before even being given the title PhD produces a very high rate of high level success. >Yes, yes it is. Research should not be for a closed shop of inward looking, often archaic and relatively backward academic institutions. IT ISN'T! Just because you're not a part of centralized, systemized education and can't access this tool doesn't mean you can't research. You also don't have access to a NMR, or an fMRI, or any number of hundreds of others of tools that cost $100k - 1m+, but you can still as a layperson educate yourself and attempt to contribute. But I think to assert that randos-at-home are the literal equivalent of the academic process and PhD's is beyond absurd, and that every man should have identical access to what earning an PhD earns you, is also absurd to me. But when it comes to the best tools that cost the most and the best opportunities, those who are a part of the system will get those options. If you want to study medicine you can do that anywhere but if you're not apart of a med school getting access to medical cadavers will be difficult. There is so much disrespect for institutions and what we as a people are capable of when we systemize. I understand the appreciation for decentralization and the FOSS model behind technology but there is so often a complete unwillingness to show any respect to any centralization at all, it's very strange.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    You aren't providing any reasons why anyone not blessed with the appropriate three letters should be barred from accessing this data.
  - 11y ago
- satyajeet23 11y ago
  I second that.
barry-cotter 11y ago
Yes, because only people who want to do research for a living should be allowed to do any research at all.
nl 11y ago
I mean that's what Ph.D's do in most fields, the whole point of getting a Ph.D is so that you can do research in that field. Um. Are you arguing that one can't do research without a PhD? I'm fairly sure that isn't true[1]. The famous Paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey doesn't even have a college degree. I believe that Fabrice Bellard doesn't have a PhD either. [1] http://lemire.me/blog/2009/02/05/skip-the-phd-go-straight-to-research/ http://lemire.me/blog/2009/02/05/skip-the-phd-go-straight-to...

by criley2 11y ago

kingkawn 11y ago

Yes but then we only find what we've been taught to see for the sake of institutional structure and wonder why life isn't more inspiring.

ACow_Adonis 11y ago

I will only speak for myself and people like me. Many of us have deliberately chosen not to go the Masters/PhD/Academic route because of how broken/backward we believe the academic system to be, and that we can have better access to both research, learnings, materials, methods, and just a general quality of life, both materially and intellectually, outside of it. That doesn't mean we're not interested in, or aren't doing, research. Indeed, we believe we're often doing it better. These edu/PhD requirements are incredibly frustrating, and there's no technical or intellectual reason they should exist: Only social, political and economic reasons. I know you did not mean any offence by posting your comment, and i do not mean any by mine, but to answer your question: "If you want to research for a living and report it, is it so ridiculous to ask that you train traditionally in researching and reporting?" Yes, yes it is. Research should not be for a closed shop of inward looking, often archaic and relatively backward academic institutions.

stfu 11y ago
But if you understand how the system works and it seems not surprising that you will face tougher challenges. I am not sure in how far this is different from rejecting the notion that a driving license is necessary to operate a car. You can certainly learn how to operate one yourself and be really good at it. But if your are a car rental company and want to reduce your liabilities it seems reasonable (but probably not fair) to let only people with a driving license rent one.
criley2 11y ago
>" and there's no technical or intellectual reason they should exist" I disagree with this completely, and I described the objective and intellectual reasons behind it in my other post! Very, very few people are capable of taking a post-graduate course-load and producing journal-quality research without any formal training. It's become a trope to dislike academia and to make the assumption that it is incapable of producing a result that is worthwhile (all while most of us in programming make intense, constant fundamental use of functions, ideas, algorithms, systems, etc that are the results of PhD in Computer Science or academia in general) The objective reason is that academia produces better researchers who are far better prepared to publish their results. The intellectual reason is that a system of learning statistics, experimental design, and a subject matter under the tutelage of a proven expert which requires the person to literally succeed in their job of researching and publishing before even being given the title PhD produces a very high rate of high level success. >Yes, yes it is. Research should not be for a closed shop of inward looking, often archaic and relatively backward academic institutions. IT ISN'T! Just because you're not a part of centralized, systemized education and can't access this tool doesn't mean you can't research. You also don't have access to a NMR, or an fMRI, or any number of hundreds of others of tools that cost $100k - 1m+, but you can still as a layperson educate yourself and attempt to contribute. But I think to assert that randos-at-home are the literal equivalent of the academic process and PhD's is beyond absurd, and that every man should have identical access to what earning an PhD earns you, is also absurd to me. But when it comes to the best tools that cost the most and the best opportunities, those who are a part of the system will get those options. If you want to study medicine you can do that anywhere but if you're not apart of a med school getting access to medical cadavers will be difficult. There is so much disrespect for institutions and what we as a people are capable of when we systemize. I understand the appreciation for decentralization and the FOSS model behind technology but there is so often a complete unwillingness to show any respect to any centralization at all, it's very strange.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  You aren't providing any reasons why anyone not blessed with the appropriate three letters should be barred from accessing this data.
- 11y ago
satyajeet23 11y ago
I second that.

barry-cotter 11y ago

Yes, because only people who want to do research for a living should be allowed to do any research at all.

nl 11y ago

I mean that's what Ph.D's do in most fields, the whole point of getting a Ph.D is so that you can do research in that field. Um. Are you arguing that one can't do research without a PhD? I'm fairly sure that isn't true[1]. The famous Paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey doesn't even have a college degree. I believe that Fabrice Bellard doesn't have a PhD either. [1] http://lemire.me/blog/2009/02/05/skip-the-phd-go-straight-to-research/ http://lemire.me/blog/2009/02/05/skip-the-phd-go-straight-to...