3 ms·
Is this true for "all fields"? Is there some pattern? Eg. fields that deal with hard data (let's say nephrology) is "better" than fields that stare at blurry Xr
by pas 4y ago
Is this true for "all fields"? Is there some pattern? Eg. fields that deal with hard data (let's say nephrology) is "better" than fields that stare at blurry Xrays? Or fields where the consequences are relatively light are worse than, let's say fields that revolve around brain surgery?
Average years of experience required to practice in that field? Monetary incentives?
- Helmut10001 4y agoI would say that anything beyond pure math is affected to a large degree by subjectivity. I have worked across three research fields (architecture, geography, informatics) and all researchers I met from these fields (apart from 1-2 exceptions) are hugely affected by their subjective intra-group beliefs. Not only that, they extrapolate their world view beyond their respective fields, which I find wrong and concerning.
- pas 4y agoOh, I think it's time to meet pure math folks then :))) > Not only that, they extrapolate their world view beyond their respective fields, which I find wrong and concerning. Does this result in some kind of explicitly noticeable things in their output? Or it's more noticeable on a meta-level via things like publication bias, choice of research topics, etc?
- dagw 4y agoNot only that, they extrapolate their world view beyond their respective fields, which I find wrong and concerning. I find that basically everybody does this, no matter what their field or background