5 ms·
> Scholars in fields where many papers are published annually face difficulty getting published, read, and cited unless their work references already widely cit
by wombatmobile 5y ago
> Scholars in fields where many papers are published annually face difficulty getting published, read, and cited unless their work references already widely cited articles. New papers containing potentially important contributions cannot garner field-wide attention through gradual processes of diffusion.
That's why change in the sciences, and similarly in commerce, industry, the arts and most human endeavours, often has to take the form of generational change, even when the raw facts would suggest otherwise to the naive observer.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.
- wrycoder 5y agoGood science will be eventually recognized. Bad science will be eventually ignored. Kuhn called it a paradigm shift. Poincare and Lorentz got old, basically gave up, and Einstein filled the void. And in the long run, bombast, cheerleading, and fraud are irrelevant.
- dandanua 5y agoRecognized by whom? You have to be a specialist in the area to see what's good and promising, and what is not. But if the area is populated with bad actors that push their own agenda – your voice will be suppressed. The idea that, eventually, everything will be organized beautifully and there will be heaven on Earth doesn't look obvious to me.
- kkoncevicius 5y ago> Recognized by whom? You have to be a specialist in the area to see what's good and promising, and what is not. And even after that the person who finds this "good science" and sees it has no citations will likely be tempted to rebrand the original idea and present it as his/her own, without referencing the original work.
- wrycoder 5y agoThe "new" science attracts plenty of citations and further development, otherwise it can't become mainstream. Sometimes this happens gradually after a first burst of recognition, sometimes suddenly. Einstein's Nobel was for his work on the photoelectric effect, and specifically not for his relativity theories.
- AussieWog93 5y ago>It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it. Wow, that basically sums up why I quit my PhD in one pithy quote. The entire literature was made up of folks being deliberately obtuse in order to secure grant money.
- civilized 5y agoIn what field may I ask?
- AussieWog93 5y agoMachine Learning (specifically its application to Brain Computer Interfaces). I'm sure all of about 2 HN readers will be shocked to discover this!
- eli_gottlieb 5y agoBCI is full of people claiming to have cracked the neural code and engineered a device around it. Neuroscience is full of people debating whether or not there is a neural code in the first place, and certainly don't consider the problem "solved". I'm not shocked.
- hn_job_throw 5y agoWould you be interested in a job trying to build something that can actually connect to a brain?
- AussieWog93 5y agoNot looking for work at this stage, but feel free to reach out and say hi. Email in bio.
- wombatmobile 5y ago> one pithy quote. from Upton Sinclair. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair