4 ms·

I've heard that actual scientists and economists are just a type of professional writer, as they must "publish or perish". I've even heard that in those publica

I've heard that actual scientists and economists are just a type of professional writer, as they must "publish or perish". I've even heard that in those publications, there is a push towards constructing narratives and telling stories. Do you know of scientists or economists who aren't paid to write that I can read from?

smt88 10y ago
> scientists and economists are just a type of professional writer While true, they're only supposed to write things that can be independently reproduced and verified. If they have to layer narratives on top of their work to get people to care, I don't see any harm in that as long as it doesn't stray outside of the lines of fact. A problem I've seen myself is that the original scientists aren't always the ones marketing their work. There's someone else (a layperson) at the university paid to do that, and they will often make claims that aren't substantiated by the original research.
- jlarocco 10y ago
  > While true, they're only supposed to write things that can be independently reproduced and verified. That's in published, peer reviewed papers. The OP was talking about their blogs, which don't have any requirements like that.
- WillPostForFood 10y ago
  But better not to confuse economists and scientists.
  - chestervonwinch 10y ago
    Don't economists empirically test mathematical models of the economy? How is this not science?
    - luckluckgoosed 10y ago
      Economists work with data about people's behaviors. Their results don't remain constant, and vary depending on social or cultural trends. So they do social sciences (which is not actually science). It used to be called "social studies" in your grade school.
robotresearcher 10y ago
> Do you know of scientists or economists who aren't paid to write that I can read from? What a weird selection criterion. It rejects all the professional scientists, by your description.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  It doesn't if the scientist's income isn't directly tied to their writing, or the opinions they reach. I would exclude, on that basis, a research scientist for an organisation, particularly a conflicts or regulatory-opposing organisation (advocacy, litigation). A teaching position that doesn't require publication, and a fair number of governmental organisations, might qualify. The latter depending much on the institutional incentives. I'd also be somewhat more partial to independent research groups not immediately supported by industrial concerns, though again in the field of politics you're going to have numerous incentives. I'm finding Robert Anton Wilson's formulation, Celine's 2nd Law, useful: accurate information is only possible in a non-punishing situation. I'd extend that: the only reward for information can be based on accuracy of that information, not the suitability of its results (e.g., shoot and/or fete the messenger).
  - robotresearcher 10y ago
    Well, almost all research doctors, engineers and scientists are rewarded indirectly for publishing research. It's a part of the job description. We aren't paid directly for papers but may be for books. But if we don't publish, no one can benefit from the work so it would be wasted. Downvalue professionally published work if you wish, but you'd be ignoring many of the most important papers in history. For what it's worth I have never felt the slightest pressure from editorial boards about the content of my papers, apart from issues of methodology and clarity that usually improve the final paper. My work has little political impact though. Other's experience may vary.
elgabogringo 10y ago
Good point. I thought about this a bit more and, to be honest, I read very few academics. Not intentionally, but it worked out that way. Strangely, some of the smarter, best informed people I read are just regular people without any journalistic or academic qualifications in the field they write on. On second thought, maybe that's not as strange as it seems.
- robotresearcher 10y ago
  It's important to understand that practicing researchers are targeting each other as the audience, and not laypeople. It's simply not the scientist's job to inform or entertain you when they work in that mode. Some choose to do popular writing as well - Carl Sagan is a very successful example. But not all, and that's OK. Most excellent scientists are busy doing useful things other than popular blogs and magazine articles. Same for judges, doctors, engineers and other busy, specialized professionals.
  - adrianratnapala 10y ago
    This is only three quaters true. The rules of any funding commmitee will include public outreach, and getting yourself published in the popular really will help you get your next grant. But all that often has an artificial feel to it, and day to day the job of scientists is to explain things too, and compete with, one another.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - robotresearcher 10y ago
      > This is only three quaters true. I said 'when they work in that mode'.
- blastrat 10y ago
  stop and think for a minute about what you are saying. Did you go to college, and did you learn anything? High school? Those books are all written by academics; very few of the smarter better informed people you're reading could write a single textbook without spending a stupid amout of time studying the field first. Nothing wrong with you being interested in reading what smart, well-informed people have to say on a variety of topics, and nothing wrong with being interested in everyday practical stuff over the edges of academia... but there is a little something wrong with thinking that your preferences indicate something "interesting" about academic writing; I read a lot of blogs too, but get a grip, man!
mancerayder 10y ago
Project Syndicate, while filled with opinion pieces, are opinion pieces by people who don't necessarily get paid. They have other agendas. That said, it's a forum for their essays as opposed to a left / right paper. People like Roubini and Stephen Roach, essayist economists, get published there. The comments there are in the same genre of intelligent and interesting as Hacker News.

smt88 10y ago

> scientists and economists are just a type of professional writer While true, they're only supposed to write things that can be independently reproduced and verified. If they have to layer narratives on top of their work to get people to care, I don't see any harm in that as long as it doesn't stray outside of the lines of fact. A problem I've seen myself is that the original scientists aren't always the ones marketing their work. There's someone else (a layperson) at the university paid to do that, and they will often make claims that aren't substantiated by the original research.

jlarocco 10y ago
> While true, they're only supposed to write things that can be independently reproduced and verified. That's in published, peer reviewed papers. The OP was talking about their blogs, which don't have any requirements like that.
WillPostForFood 10y ago
But better not to confuse economists and scientists.
- chestervonwinch 10y ago
  Don't economists empirically test mathematical models of the economy? How is this not science?
  - luckluckgoosed 10y ago
    Economists work with data about people's behaviors. Their results don't remain constant, and vary depending on social or cultural trends. So they do social sciences (which is not actually science). It used to be called "social studies" in your grade school.

robotresearcher 10y ago

> Do you know of scientists or economists who aren't paid to write that I can read from? What a weird selection criterion. It rejects all the professional scientists, by your description.

dredmorbius 10y ago
It doesn't if the scientist's income isn't directly tied to their writing, or the opinions they reach. I would exclude, on that basis, a research scientist for an organisation, particularly a conflicts or regulatory-opposing organisation (advocacy, litigation). A teaching position that doesn't require publication, and a fair number of governmental organisations, might qualify. The latter depending much on the institutional incentives. I'd also be somewhat more partial to independent research groups not immediately supported by industrial concerns, though again in the field of politics you're going to have numerous incentives. I'm finding Robert Anton Wilson's formulation, Celine's 2nd Law, useful: accurate information is only possible in a non-punishing situation. I'd extend that: the only reward for information can be based on accuracy of that information, not the suitability of its results (e.g., shoot and/or fete the messenger).
- robotresearcher 10y ago
  Well, almost all research doctors, engineers and scientists are rewarded indirectly for publishing research. It's a part of the job description. We aren't paid directly for papers but may be for books. But if we don't publish, no one can benefit from the work so it would be wasted. Downvalue professionally published work if you wish, but you'd be ignoring many of the most important papers in history. For what it's worth I have never felt the slightest pressure from editorial boards about the content of my papers, apart from issues of methodology and clarity that usually improve the final paper. My work has little political impact though. Other's experience may vary.

elgabogringo 10y ago

Good point. I thought about this a bit more and, to be honest, I read very few academics. Not intentionally, but it worked out that way. Strangely, some of the smarter, best informed people I read are just regular people without any journalistic or academic qualifications in the field they write on. On second thought, maybe that's not as strange as it seems.

robotresearcher 10y ago
It's important to understand that practicing researchers are targeting each other as the audience, and not laypeople. It's simply not the scientist's job to inform or entertain you when they work in that mode. Some choose to do popular writing as well - Carl Sagan is a very successful example. But not all, and that's OK. Most excellent scientists are busy doing useful things other than popular blogs and magazine articles. Same for judges, doctors, engineers and other busy, specialized professionals.
- adrianratnapala 10y ago
  This is only three quaters true. The rules of any funding commmitee will include public outreach, and getting yourself published in the popular really will help you get your next grant. But all that often has an artificial feel to it, and day to day the job of scientists is to explain things too, and compete with, one another.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - robotresearcher 10y ago
    > This is only three quaters true. I said 'when they work in that mode'.
blastrat 10y ago
stop and think for a minute about what you are saying. Did you go to college, and did you learn anything? High school? Those books are all written by academics; very few of the smarter better informed people you're reading could write a single textbook without spending a stupid amout of time studying the field first. Nothing wrong with you being interested in reading what smart, well-informed people have to say on a variety of topics, and nothing wrong with being interested in everyday practical stuff over the edges of academia... but there is a little something wrong with thinking that your preferences indicate something "interesting" about academic writing; I read a lot of blogs too, but get a grip, man!

mancerayder 10y ago

Project Syndicate, while filled with opinion pieces, are opinion pieces by people who don't necessarily get paid. They have other agendas. That said, it's a forum for their essays as opposed to a left / right paper. People like Roubini and Stephen Roach, essayist economists, get published there. The comments there are in the same genre of intelligent and interesting as Hacker News.