4 ms·
>WTF, are you out of your mind? I was doing a PhD in high energy experimental physics until I finally notice that the majority of my peers were not doing scien
by buzzkillington 7y ago
>WTF, are you out of your mind?
I was doing a PhD in high energy experimental physics until I finally notice that the majority of my peers were not doing science, they were padding a resume.
Today we could stop doing high energy physics, both theory and experiments, for 50 years and we would not actually retard the progress of the field. We lack the engineering to build experiments better than the ones we have for any sane price and we are sitting around counting angels on pins. The brainpower that we are wasting on un-rigorous mathematics could be much better spent in any number of fields.
I dare you to read 100 papers in any field that you are familiar with and tell me that 95 of the papers aren't there just because someone needed to publish something. I've talked to people in astronomy, genetics, mechanical engineering and computer science and they all say the same thing.
We don't need more science, we need better science. The simplest way to do that is to do less of it. We won't even be hurting progress because you will be able to trust it, unlike today where if you try and synthesize an experiment from three papers you're pretty much guaranteed it won't work because the papers are either fraudulent, p-hacked, flat out wrong or not even wrong.
- pauljurczak 7y ago> We don't need more science, we need better science. Exactly. We have to increase signal to noise ratio. I'm trying to stay current with progress in Computer Vision and the amount of junk being published is overwhelming. I'm pretty sure it's the same in many other disciplines.
- pacman128 7y agoEx-prof here. The whole publish or perish mentality is a big problem. How many good papers can a researcher produce a year? Way less than they are expected to in the academic world.
- eecc 7y agoI suspect it’s more to do with the publish or perish and funding dearth combination. Departments need a blockbuster discoveries just to stay open, it’s obvious where the incentive goes. Also, none of the underlings will ever think of questioning - let alone reviewing - the results. Their career, their debt repayment plans, their income would be railroaded the moment they stop to think at what they’re doing. In this Mad Max scenario who’s going to make science and who’s just coasting in survival mode?