2 ms·
Bingo...we have a winner. This issue reeks with the rank smell of base politics and in/out group dynamics, and humans have been fighting, in the abstract, thes
by cubano 5y ago
Bingo...we have a winner.
This issue reeks with the rank smell of base politics and in/out group dynamics, and humans have been fighting, in the abstract, these issues since the time Egyptians were building the pyramids.
How can there possibly be an "objective rating" when career advancement, peer respect, and big money all are in the mix depending upon results?
- visarga 5y agoIt's not just personal interest here, it's that we can't tell what is good research at the outset, it might take years to be able to appreciate it. It's like climbing a mountain when you can't see the path ahead and have no map. It might lead to the top, or might lead to a lesser peak, or you have to pass a chasm. In other words objectives are deceiving and rating is based on objectives. Example: mRNA inventor being sidelined at her university when her method wasn't famous Example2: Schmidhuber inventing stuff and being forgotten because data and compute were just too small back then It's all about building a diverse collection of stepping stones. Any new discovery might seem useless and we can't tell which are going to matter years later, but we need the diversity to hedge against the unknown.