3 ms·

> the math on probabilities should be using distributions Do you really think that this is novel in any way whatsoever? There is some yearly chance of nuclear

> the math on probabilities should be using distributions Do you really think that this is novel in any way whatsoever? There is some yearly chance of nuclear war, and I don't know about geopolitics so I have a prior distribution over that yearly chance. Should I cite this paper? I actually really like the authors, and for all I know the paper may have some new insights or perform a calculation that hasn't been done before, but let's not pretend that prior distributions over probabilities is a new idea.

true_religion 8y ago
What does novelty have to do with dissolving the Fermi Paradox? Is Fermi is some well established science, with repeated experimental proof, upon which numerous other conjectures have been built on? Does it really require a novel approach to attack its basis?
- jessriedel 8y ago
  The top-level commenter wrote > Everyone considered this option. From the very first day the paradox was posed. We don't know the parameters well, it's within our margin of error that no one else is out there, so it's an option. And the person I replied to was rebutting this point (that the approach is obvious and considered long ago). It's fine to write review articles, or clean up old arguments and repackage them, but it shouldn't be presented as a new idea, and in particular it should point to the prior work.
  - titzer 8y ago
    I don't think they are claiming to have invented math on probability distributions and I didn't mean to suggest that that is what is novel about this paper. They used a different, more powerful technique to look at the math of the Fermi Paradox and came to a conclusion different than that following from the normal treatment of the Drake equation. That's a reasonable contribution, IMO.
    - jessriedel 8y ago
      But if you just formalize an approach that was considered by everyone right from the start, this isn't coming to a different conclusion. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17304389 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17304389)

true_religion 8y ago

What does novelty have to do with dissolving the Fermi Paradox? Is Fermi is some well established science, with repeated experimental proof, upon which numerous other conjectures have been built on? Does it really require a novel approach to attack its basis?

jessriedel 8y ago
The top-level commenter wrote > Everyone considered this option. From the very first day the paradox was posed. We don't know the parameters well, it's within our margin of error that no one else is out there, so it's an option. And the person I replied to was rebutting this point (that the approach is obvious and considered long ago). It's fine to write review articles, or clean up old arguments and repackage them, but it shouldn't be presented as a new idea, and in particular it should point to the prior work.
- titzer 8y ago
  I don't think they are claiming to have invented math on probability distributions and I didn't mean to suggest that that is what is novel about this paper. They used a different, more powerful technique to look at the math of the Fermi Paradox and came to a conclusion different than that following from the normal treatment of the Drake equation. That's a reasonable contribution, IMO.
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    But if you just formalize an approach that was considered by everyone right from the start, this isn't coming to a different conclusion. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17304389 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17304389)