5 ms·
You're splitting hairs. Groundbreaking has a pretty low bar these days. Just remember that 50 year old profs came of age in a different era.
by forensic 15y ago
You're splitting hairs. Groundbreaking has a pretty low bar these days.
Just remember that 50 year old profs came of age in a different era.
- scott_s 15y agoHuh? As a field matures, the bar for groundbreaking increases. Most research is iterative, including everything I've done, and almost everything my peers have done.
- forensic 15y agoWhy are you stating the obvious? I am trying to make a point that in the world of vicious competition for grant money, every shitty incremental experiment is lauded as groundbreaking. For very understandable reasons. I'm being facetious about the way that the key quality of a scientist has shifted from doing and teaching science to being a great marketer who can win grants. The "best" scientists these days are generally the ones who are really great at hype.
- scott_s 15y agoIt was not clear that you were using "groundbreaking" facetiously. Hence my confusion. I agree there are problems with how science works right now, and I agree on what the problems are. I disagree on the weights of the incentives, though. You describe "rampant" fraud. I have observed none. Then my conclusion is that the claim that fraud is rampant is incorrect.
- forensic 15y ago>I have observed none. How hard have you looked and what is your definition of fraud?