3 ms·

Inevitable of not, this has real costs, in that that government will eventually turn off the gravy train and the "good" and "bad" research alike will be negativ

Inevitable of not, this has real costs, in that that government will eventually turn off the gravy train and the "good" and "bad" research alike will be negatively impacted. In other words, academia is sowing the seeds of its own demise, and with it, the official institutional pinnacle of our culture [please don't wince too hard when reading that!]. ---- The solution i think is less research but more library work. See https://blog.khinsen.net/posts/2020/07/08/the-landscapes-of-digital-scientific-knowledge/ https://blog.khinsen.net/posts/2020/07/08/the-landscapes-of-... and https://hapgood.us/2015/10/17/the-garden-and-the-stream-a-technopastoral/ https://hapgood.us/2015/10/17/the-garden-and-the-stream-a-te... which it cites. The amount of work library work we are not doing is just staggering. Consider these claims: - There should be an accredited-author-ornly "kernel wikipedia" which the main one can choose to incorporate, almost like release vs staging branches. - Different subfield way wish to keep their own intentionally biased corpuses, like https://ncatlab.org/nlab/ https://ncatlab.org/nlab/ - After 6 months, virtually no one should have to read the original research article, because the librarian core will have incorporated it's results claims (however controversial) into the appropriate articles - Textbooks / "knowledge bootstrap plans" should be continuously updated from the encyclopedia, not unlike how bootstrapping is managed in a package repo - Librarians do the work, but also adjudicate disputes, as researchers will be naturally incentivized to contest how their work is incorporated as that is the primary way it is consumed.

craftinator 6y ago
> In other words, academia is sowing the seeds of its own demise This is first order thinking. Yes, if an increasingly large quantity of academic research is becoming bullshit, eventually the ratio of good to bad research will reach an inflection point where policy will be set that reduces research funding. This reduction in funding will have many effects, but the largest will be that as funding becomes a scarce resource, a higher curation of both researchers and topics will come into effect. There will be less research and papers overall, but the largest decrease in research will be those that are bullshit. Finally, as more and more research will be fruitful and useful, and fewer and fewer bullshit papers are published, an inflection point will be reached. There will be more funding allocated to these exciting new areas of study, and more research will happen. Of course, with funding no longer a scarce resource, less curation will occur, and a few more bullshit papers will be published... And the cycle will have advanced one wavelength. It's been happening for years, centuries, as a basic economic cycle, and looks something like this: _/T\_/T\_/T\
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  I'm thinking higher-order too, but I subscribe to the idea at the start of https://pedestrianobservations.com/2020/08/29/recession-and-efficiency/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2020/08/29/recession-and-... > Question. In what ways can a recession be useful for forcing inefficient public-sector agencies to lay off redundant workers and reduce bloat? > Answer. None. And keep in mind that academia might as well be considered public sector, but the idea transcends to most large-scale/loosely-planned cost cutting for efficiency gain schemes. Your starting point is a lot on individual virtue, and bad apples crowding out the good. I don't disagree that some researches are better and some are worse, but I think that any "cure" is going to be gamed and worse than the disease. > but the largest will be that as funding becomes a scarce resource, a higher curation of both researchers and topics will come into effect Do you have any evidence of this? I disagree in the strongest of terms. By my reckoning, curation, preventation, and other "forsight-drive" work is persistently undervalue by our society and economy. The nastiness that will accompany shrinking funding as research groups fight for short-term survival will only make that worse. > but the largest decrease in research will be those that are bullshit Why would those who are the best at gaming incentives now loose that skill? > It's been happening for years, centuries, as a basic economic cycle, and looks something like this: _/T\_/T\_/T\ So after centuries of Byzantine decline, there is new group of lean and mean Greek Constantinopolitan bureaucrats? After the Spain grew rich on New World bullion and then poor with a dearth of industrialization there is a new generation of hyper-efficient factories putting Germany to shame? I dunno what history you are reading, but the good actors never outlive the broken system and get the last laugh in mine.
  - craftinator 6y ago
    Old comment, but worth a reply. > Your starting point is a lot on individual virtue, and bad apples crowding out the good. I don't disagree that some researches are better and some are worse, but I think that any "cure" is going to be gamed and worse than the disease. I don't think that there will be any cure, just a change in available resources that changes the number of projects that get funding. Of course people will game it, but the people who dole out the cash will be more selective if there is less cash to dole. >> but the largest will be that as funding becomes a scarce resource, a higher curation of both researchers and topics will come into effect > Do you have any evidence of this? I disagree in the strongest of terms. By my reckoning, curation, preventation, and other "forsight-drive" work is persistently undervalue by our society and economy. The nastiness that will accompany shrinking funding as research groups fight for short-term survival will only make that worse. There isn't any evidence of events that haven't occured yet. There is logical and historical support, as hundreds of years of economics have shown that market systems tend to optimize around the scarcest resources. >> but the largest decrease in research will be those that are bullshit > Why would those who are the best at gaming incentives now loose that skill? They wouldn't lose that skill, but as there will be fewer research projects funded, more scrutiny will go into which projects get the funding. Sure, some will still game the system, but it will require more work, and more luck, so proportionally fewer will get funded. >> It's been happening for years, centuries, as a basic economic cycle, and looks something like this: _/T\_/T\_/T\ > So after centuries of Byzantine decline, there is new group of lean and mean Greek Constantinopolitan bureaucrats? Now you're just being silly... You're saying that the Institution of research will fall, rather than self correct? We'll just give up on scientific research and just... Hang out or something? > I dunno what history you are reading, but the good actors never outlive the broken system and get the last laugh in mine. It depends on the system. There have been years with drought, but people haven't given up on farming. Systems only fail when they are unsupported or unnecessary, and Institutional research is neither of those.
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
> There should be an accredited-author-ornly "kernel wikipedia" This is roughly what the Citizendium project was aiming for. Sadly it seems it's not doing well these days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizendium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizendium https://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citizendium https://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citizendium
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Exactly! The fact of the matter is Accreditation and the State go hand-in-hand. You can go full anarchism like Wikipedia (and thats' great!) but if you want something a bit more curated, a bit more "official", you need officers (by the etymology even!) and you need funding, i.e. state support.
bonoboTP 6y ago
Scholarpedia is similar as well. I agree there is not enough library work and there is too much focus on the 4-15 page publication format. This amount is often not enough to fully flesh out an idea or to present something non-incremental. Rather, people tend to chunk up work, called salami publishing. Now, sure doctoral theses also exist but the vast majority of research is presented in about 4-15 pages. But I disagree that after 6 months everything should be integrated into other summary work. Most published research is not worthy of being integrated into other work and 6 months are jót enough to decide. Most papers are forgotten and rightfully so. Publication doesn't mean it's correct or worthy of eternal remembrance. It just means that a scientist wants to share a finding with the research community. It's not established knowledge yet. Only when it is actually adopted and used successfully by the community, will it be part of established shared knowledge. After some years such key ideas do get written into textbooks.

craftinator 6y ago

> In other words, academia is sowing the seeds of its own demise This is first order thinking. Yes, if an increasingly large quantity of academic research is becoming bullshit, eventually the ratio of good to bad research will reach an inflection point where policy will be set that reduces research funding. This reduction in funding will have many effects, but the largest will be that as funding becomes a scarce resource, a higher curation of both researchers and topics will come into effect. There will be less research and papers overall, but the largest decrease in research will be those that are bullshit. Finally, as more and more research will be fruitful and useful, and fewer and fewer bullshit papers are published, an inflection point will be reached. There will be more funding allocated to these exciting new areas of study, and more research will happen. Of course, with funding no longer a scarce resource, less curation will occur, and a few more bullshit papers will be published... And the cycle will have advanced one wavelength. It's been happening for years, centuries, as a basic economic cycle, and looks something like this: _/T\_/T\_/T\

Ericson2314 6y ago
I'm thinking higher-order too, but I subscribe to the idea at the start of https://pedestrianobservations.com/2020/08/29/recession-and-efficiency/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2020/08/29/recession-and-... > Question. In what ways can a recession be useful for forcing inefficient public-sector agencies to lay off redundant workers and reduce bloat? > Answer. None. And keep in mind that academia might as well be considered public sector, but the idea transcends to most large-scale/loosely-planned cost cutting for efficiency gain schemes. Your starting point is a lot on individual virtue, and bad apples crowding out the good. I don't disagree that some researches are better and some are worse, but I think that any "cure" is going to be gamed and worse than the disease. > but the largest will be that as funding becomes a scarce resource, a higher curation of both researchers and topics will come into effect Do you have any evidence of this? I disagree in the strongest of terms. By my reckoning, curation, preventation, and other "forsight-drive" work is persistently undervalue by our society and economy. The nastiness that will accompany shrinking funding as research groups fight for short-term survival will only make that worse. > but the largest decrease in research will be those that are bullshit Why would those who are the best at gaming incentives now loose that skill? > It's been happening for years, centuries, as a basic economic cycle, and looks something like this: _/T\_/T\_/T\ So after centuries of Byzantine decline, there is new group of lean and mean Greek Constantinopolitan bureaucrats? After the Spain grew rich on New World bullion and then poor with a dearth of industrialization there is a new generation of hyper-efficient factories putting Germany to shame? I dunno what history you are reading, but the good actors never outlive the broken system and get the last laugh in mine.
- craftinator 6y ago
  Old comment, but worth a reply. > Your starting point is a lot on individual virtue, and bad apples crowding out the good. I don't disagree that some researches are better and some are worse, but I think that any "cure" is going to be gamed and worse than the disease. I don't think that there will be any cure, just a change in available resources that changes the number of projects that get funding. Of course people will game it, but the people who dole out the cash will be more selective if there is less cash to dole. >> but the largest will be that as funding becomes a scarce resource, a higher curation of both researchers and topics will come into effect > Do you have any evidence of this? I disagree in the strongest of terms. By my reckoning, curation, preventation, and other "forsight-drive" work is persistently undervalue by our society and economy. The nastiness that will accompany shrinking funding as research groups fight for short-term survival will only make that worse. There isn't any evidence of events that haven't occured yet. There is logical and historical support, as hundreds of years of economics have shown that market systems tend to optimize around the scarcest resources. >> but the largest decrease in research will be those that are bullshit > Why would those who are the best at gaming incentives now loose that skill? They wouldn't lose that skill, but as there will be fewer research projects funded, more scrutiny will go into which projects get the funding. Sure, some will still game the system, but it will require more work, and more luck, so proportionally fewer will get funded. >> It's been happening for years, centuries, as a basic economic cycle, and looks something like this: _/T\_/T\_/T\ > So after centuries of Byzantine decline, there is new group of lean and mean Greek Constantinopolitan bureaucrats? Now you're just being silly... You're saying that the Institution of research will fall, rather than self correct? We'll just give up on scientific research and just... Hang out or something? > I dunno what history you are reading, but the good actors never outlive the broken system and get the last laugh in mine. It depends on the system. There have been years with drought, but people haven't given up on farming. Systems only fail when they are unsupported or unnecessary, and Institutional research is neither of those.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago

> There should be an accredited-author-ornly "kernel wikipedia" This is roughly what the Citizendium project was aiming for. Sadly it seems it's not doing well these days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizendium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizendium https://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citizendium https://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citizendium

Ericson2314 6y ago
Exactly! The fact of the matter is Accreditation and the State go hand-in-hand. You can go full anarchism like Wikipedia (and thats' great!) but if you want something a bit more curated, a bit more "official", you need officers (by the etymology even!) and you need funding, i.e. state support.

bonoboTP 6y ago

Scholarpedia is similar as well. I agree there is not enough library work and there is too much focus on the 4-15 page publication format. This amount is often not enough to fully flesh out an idea or to present something non-incremental. Rather, people tend to chunk up work, called salami publishing. Now, sure doctoral theses also exist but the vast majority of research is presented in about 4-15 pages. But I disagree that after 6 months everything should be integrated into other summary work. Most published research is not worthy of being integrated into other work and 6 months are jót enough to decide. Most papers are forgotten and rightfully so. Publication doesn't mean it's correct or worthy of eternal remembrance. It just means that a scientist wants to share a finding with the research community. It's not established knowledge yet. Only when it is actually adopted and used successfully by the community, will it be part of established shared knowledge. After some years such key ideas do get written into textbooks.