3 ms·

The original proposal was not, "For any field of study, I will dismiss it if anyone provides me with two papers that do not meet my standards." Rather, the orig

by mcherm 8y ago

The original proposal was not, "For any field of study, I will dismiss it if anyone provides me with two papers that do not meet my standards." Rather, the original proposal was "If you wish to assert a field of study is worthy of my attention, I will acquiesce and spend time studying it so long as you can provide me with two papers that meet my standards." Because of this formulation, the standards are set rather high. Bryan Caplan's point is that if the best two papers out of a field of hundreds are not above these standards, then there is little value to be gained by slogging through the hundreds.

jonathanstrange 8y ago
Not very laudable either. First you rely on someone else to give you the best papers and assume that this person knows them, instead of using your own brain. Second, anyone can wish to assert a field of study is worth someone's attention and that still doesn't oblige you to consider it worthy of your attention. Just tell them "fine, do your stuff, I'm not very interested in it" What's wrong with that? >Bryan Caplan's point is that if the best two papers out of a field of hundreds are not above these standards, then there is little value to be gained by slogging through the hundreds. And why would anyone need criteria for that? What kind of person would need to justify to themselves or others that they prefer to study topology instead of, say, financial mathematics? Caplan apparently needs some criterion to be able to be dismissive about someone else's work or discipline rather than pursuing his own scientific goals and interests. Yes, I find that kind of anti-intellectual, or at least small-minded.
- gliboc 8y ago
  The original proposal, which is not by Caplan, tries to optimize time spent reading, which is crucial as a researcher. > And why would anyone need criteria for that? What kind of person would need to justify to themselves or others that they prefer to study topology instead of, say, financial mathematics? We need criteria to assess the value to papers, because generally the whole assumed point of writing a paper is to add value. > Caplan apparently needs some criterion to be able to be dismissive about someone else's work or discipline rather than pursuing his own scientific goals and interests. Yes, I find that kind of anti-intellectual, or at least small-minded. Ad hominem much. Also, Caplan doesn't say that, and you are talking about the original proposal. You don't seem to have read the article further than the title and the premise, though interestingly you seem able to judge the author itself and convict him with bad thinking. This very much contradicts your own previous piece of advice > 1. Never dismiss a book or paper quickly because you believe you've found a mistake. Read them until the end and take the authors seriously! which, to me, seem rather like virtue signaling than a real advice; all the more when you don't apply it thoroughly in reality.
  - iron0012 8y ago
    You have used ad hominem incorrectly.
  - jonathanstrange 8y ago
    Look, I've never claimed I've read anything, that was your invention, and I've also said that you should use your bullshit detector and wise men choose their literature carefully. I simply objected to the idea on the linked web page that you can ask someone to give you the two best articles in a field, then assess these, and use your resulting opinion to somehow evaluate the whole field as an outsider. That idea is silly and small-minded. If that feels like an ad hominem attack to you, so be it.
joesb 8y ago
Well, the counter point is the article is that the standards is ridiculous. And that you are just effectively setting those standard so that you'll never have to learn anything from that field, because no paper in that field will pass the ridiculous standard.

by mcherm 8y ago

jonathanstrange 8y ago

Not very laudable either. First you rely on someone else to give you the best papers and assume that this person knows them, instead of using your own brain. Second, anyone can wish to assert a field of study is worth someone's attention and that still doesn't oblige you to consider it worthy of your attention. Just tell them "fine, do your stuff, I'm not very interested in it" What's wrong with that? >Bryan Caplan's point is that if the best two papers out of a field of hundreds are not above these standards, then there is little value to be gained by slogging through the hundreds. And why would anyone need criteria for that? What kind of person would need to justify to themselves or others that they prefer to study topology instead of, say, financial mathematics? Caplan apparently needs some criterion to be able to be dismissive about someone else's work or discipline rather than pursuing his own scientific goals and interests. Yes, I find that kind of anti-intellectual, or at least small-minded.

gliboc 8y ago
The original proposal, which is not by Caplan, tries to optimize time spent reading, which is crucial as a researcher. > And why would anyone need criteria for that? What kind of person would need to justify to themselves or others that they prefer to study topology instead of, say, financial mathematics? We need criteria to assess the value to papers, because generally the whole assumed point of writing a paper is to add value. > Caplan apparently needs some criterion to be able to be dismissive about someone else's work or discipline rather than pursuing his own scientific goals and interests. Yes, I find that kind of anti-intellectual, or at least small-minded. Ad hominem much. Also, Caplan doesn't say that, and you are talking about the original proposal. You don't seem to have read the article further than the title and the premise, though interestingly you seem able to judge the author itself and convict him with bad thinking. This very much contradicts your own previous piece of advice > 1. Never dismiss a book or paper quickly because you believe you've found a mistake. Read them until the end and take the authors seriously! which, to me, seem rather like virtue signaling than a real advice; all the more when you don't apply it thoroughly in reality.
- iron0012 8y ago
  You have used ad hominem incorrectly.
- jonathanstrange 8y ago
  Look, I've never claimed I've read anything, that was your invention, and I've also said that you should use your bullshit detector and wise men choose their literature carefully. I simply objected to the idea on the linked web page that you can ask someone to give you the two best articles in a field, then assess these, and use your resulting opinion to somehow evaluate the whole field as an outsider. That idea is silly and small-minded. If that feels like an ad hominem attack to you, so be it.

joesb 8y ago

Well, the counter point is the article is that the standards is ridiculous. And that you are just effectively setting those standard so that you'll never have to learn anything from that field, because no paper in that field will pass the ridiculous standard.