6 ms·

I'm pretty sure this is not the case. Scientific texts are usually awfully bad in any language I speak, including 2 languages that are my native. In fact, "scie

by krick 9y ago

I'm pretty sure this is not the case. Scientific texts are usually awfully bad in any language I speak, including 2 languages that are my native. In fact, "scientific paper style" language is so distinct, that it can be easily applied to a paper that is not "scientific" per se, essentially obfuscating it. It seems to be very unpopular opinion here on HN, but it seems clear to me, that academia has become some kind of patalogical structure, which exists to exists — essentially an organism. It feeds on government and student's money, as long as it can seems credible and necessary to the outside world; and people within this structure can live as long, as they show that they are not "slacking" somehow — publishing papers, giving lectures — but they don't actually need (nor often want) to produce any result. Form has become more important than the essence. So, here we have it: the form of a "scientific paper".

spaceseaman 9y ago
The casual nature with which you dismiss thousands of people who have devoted their lives to the pursuit of academic knowledge is frustrating and incredibly childish. Like seriously? Do you think all of us PhDs just sit around and laugh about how dumb the government is while planning how we can make more useless papers? Do you think grad students just train to become better bullshitters? Like what kind of hole do you live in where any of that even appears close to reality. Seems to me you just tried reading a couple papers, got confused, and decided to justify your own intelligence by claiming their hard work and advancements in the field were pointless. > but they don't actually need (nor often want) to produce any result Stop talking out of your rear end. I want to produce a result. My advisor wants to produce a result. We all want to have meaning in our lives. EDIT: As just a casual example of the importance of academia, look at the Deep Learning boom. First researched around 1960, only now becoming practical and useful. It's almost as if the things academics study need time and a lot of work to actually come to fruition. Research level study is highly expensive for very little real gains. This has always been the case. It takes a long-long time for the investments into research to make sense, but when they do, the advancements are completely game-changing.
- gaius 9y ago
  The ratio of PhDs awarded annually to tenure track positions that opens up suggests that a lot of activity in the sector isn't leading anywhere.
  - spaceseaman 9y ago
    It's almost as if most research doesn't go anywhere. If I put you in a dark room, and ask you to find a way to light it, how many times will you fail to find the switch? Oh wait, I lied. There's not actually a switch, but there might be a candle in that general direction. Maybe. That's how little we have to go off of. That's how empty any information on your study is. I don't think people really understand how hard this type of work is. Research is a purely exploratory and creative work. Like art, science requires time, patience, and many many failures. You don't just get a bunch of eureka-Einsteins that come out of MIT day one knocking down Theorems and discovering new physical laws. That's just not humanly possible and it's ridiculous if you think it'll ever work that way I am perfectly willing to admit that the vast majority of research and PhD's went nowhere and will continue to go nowhere for a long time. But that doesn't mean they're useless. Research requires exploration. It requires trial and error. It is highly inefficient and does not fit well in a consumerist society like ours, but this is the way that works best for us so far. If you have some better idea, then why don't you go out and do it? How are you going to get a bunch of incredibly intelligent, creative, and independent people funded and provided for in a society that values immediate results over long term achievements? I'm not arguing the academia system is perfect. Any one knows it's screwed up beyond belief. But it's not out of malice. We're not purposely trying to make the world worse, or something ridiculous like that. You have many people who care a lot about the science, who need to eat and sleep and need money to do that. Sometimes the money goes to their heads, sometimes their massive egos get the better of them, but do you seriously think we don't care about science? You'd have to be an idiot to do a PhD for the money or the fame. Why do you think we put 7+ years of our lives into stuff like this? So most PhDs don't actually get tenured positions. What are you actually trying to say? Are you saying there aren't enough tenured positions? Or are you implying that these PhDs don't deserve tenured positions? Do you have any evidence for either of those claims? Because otherwise you're just participating in more armchair speculation.
im3w1l 9y ago
I think the reason that people prioritize the form is because of a kind of cargo cult. The form is followed because that's how it's always been and it has worked so far. And people are scared that if the form is changed it will have unexpected consequences.
- coliveira 9y ago
  All this discussion doesn't consider the fact that papers are written for specific audience: scientists in a very narrow field. What seems to be gibberish for you is perfectly understandable for people working in that area, otherwise it wouldn't be even published in the first place. Now, it is true that it would be nice to have this translated into laymen words, but the problem is that scientists usually have better things to do...
  - im3w1l 9y ago
    I found your post pretty condescending. I have read and understood many papers. Even written one.
SubiculumCode 9y ago
The facts are the opposite really. Today we are collecting so much data that we don't have enough time to actually write it all up. That is why we beyond busy. And to your others assertions. Utter hogwash.
CuriouslyC 9y ago
Academia is absolutely necrotic. Between the fact that good scientists spend most of their time writing grants, the fact that most scientists spend their life as eternal postdocs, the rigged publishing game, the increasing balkanization of fields, the fact that most people are trying to protect the status quo rather than overturn it, and the goal of publishing rather than actually discovering, things look very grim. I think that government needs to cut back on grants, and instead provide better incentives for corporations to do open access basic research. This would still have the problem of producing somewhat obfuscated science, but in general it would push things towards being more interdisciplinary and functional, since corporations could increase profitability by leveraging synergies between basic and applied research.

by krick 9y ago

spaceseaman 9y ago

The casual nature with which you dismiss thousands of people who have devoted their lives to the pursuit of academic knowledge is frustrating and incredibly childish. Like seriously? Do you think all of us PhDs just sit around and laugh about how dumb the government is while planning how we can make more useless papers? Do you think grad students just train to become better bullshitters? Like what kind of hole do you live in where any of that even appears close to reality. Seems to me you just tried reading a couple papers, got confused, and decided to justify your own intelligence by claiming their hard work and advancements in the field were pointless. > but they don't actually need (nor often want) to produce any result Stop talking out of your rear end. I want to produce a result. My advisor wants to produce a result. We all want to have meaning in our lives. EDIT: As just a casual example of the importance of academia, look at the Deep Learning boom. First researched around 1960, only now becoming practical and useful. It's almost as if the things academics study need time and a lot of work to actually come to fruition. Research level study is highly expensive for very little real gains. This has always been the case. It takes a long-long time for the investments into research to make sense, but when they do, the advancements are completely game-changing.

gaius 9y ago
The ratio of PhDs awarded annually to tenure track positions that opens up suggests that a lot of activity in the sector isn't leading anywhere.
- spaceseaman 9y ago
  It's almost as if most research doesn't go anywhere. If I put you in a dark room, and ask you to find a way to light it, how many times will you fail to find the switch? Oh wait, I lied. There's not actually a switch, but there might be a candle in that general direction. Maybe. That's how little we have to go off of. That's how empty any information on your study is. I don't think people really understand how hard this type of work is. Research is a purely exploratory and creative work. Like art, science requires time, patience, and many many failures. You don't just get a bunch of eureka-Einsteins that come out of MIT day one knocking down Theorems and discovering new physical laws. That's just not humanly possible and it's ridiculous if you think it'll ever work that way I am perfectly willing to admit that the vast majority of research and PhD's went nowhere and will continue to go nowhere for a long time. But that doesn't mean they're useless. Research requires exploration. It requires trial and error. It is highly inefficient and does not fit well in a consumerist society like ours, but this is the way that works best for us so far. If you have some better idea, then why don't you go out and do it? How are you going to get a bunch of incredibly intelligent, creative, and independent people funded and provided for in a society that values immediate results over long term achievements? I'm not arguing the academia system is perfect. Any one knows it's screwed up beyond belief. But it's not out of malice. We're not purposely trying to make the world worse, or something ridiculous like that. You have many people who care a lot about the science, who need to eat and sleep and need money to do that. Sometimes the money goes to their heads, sometimes their massive egos get the better of them, but do you seriously think we don't care about science? You'd have to be an idiot to do a PhD for the money or the fame. Why do you think we put 7+ years of our lives into stuff like this? So most PhDs don't actually get tenured positions. What are you actually trying to say? Are you saying there aren't enough tenured positions? Or are you implying that these PhDs don't deserve tenured positions? Do you have any evidence for either of those claims? Because otherwise you're just participating in more armchair speculation.

im3w1l 9y ago

I think the reason that people prioritize the form is because of a kind of cargo cult. The form is followed because that's how it's always been and it has worked so far. And people are scared that if the form is changed it will have unexpected consequences.

coliveira 9y ago
All this discussion doesn't consider the fact that papers are written for specific audience: scientists in a very narrow field. What seems to be gibberish for you is perfectly understandable for people working in that area, otherwise it wouldn't be even published in the first place. Now, it is true that it would be nice to have this translated into laymen words, but the problem is that scientists usually have better things to do...
- im3w1l 9y ago
  I found your post pretty condescending. I have read and understood many papers. Even written one.

SubiculumCode 9y ago

The facts are the opposite really. Today we are collecting so much data that we don't have enough time to actually write it all up. That is why we beyond busy. And to your others assertions. Utter hogwash.

CuriouslyC 9y ago

Academia is absolutely necrotic. Between the fact that good scientists spend most of their time writing grants, the fact that most scientists spend their life as eternal postdocs, the rigged publishing game, the increasing balkanization of fields, the fact that most people are trying to protect the status quo rather than overturn it, and the goal of publishing rather than actually discovering, things look very grim. I think that government needs to cut back on grants, and instead provide better incentives for corporations to do open access basic research. This would still have the problem of producing somewhat obfuscated science, but in general it would push things towards being more interdisciplinary and functional, since corporations could increase profitability by leveraging synergies between basic and applied research.