3 ms·

Wolfram's attitude isn't just a personality issue, it actually violates the norms of science, which exist for good reason. When Wolfram writes a long screed ab

by ajb 4y ago

Wolfram's attitude isn't just a personality issue, it actually violates the norms of science, which exist for good reason. When Wolfram writes a long screed about his own genius as an introduction to his work that's a claim to intellectual authority. Scientific work isn't supposed to be evaluated based on the authority of its author, because that's not a good guide to whether it is valid. As I understand it (I haven't personally checked) Wolfram doesn't submit any of his stuff to peer review either.

2b3a51 4y ago
As another poster put it perhaps Dr Wolfram has chosen to work outside the community recently. The early cellular automata papers were published in peer reviewed journals, and the OA contains an anecdote about the external refereeing of one short paper. I read the early autobiographical material as just an older man recording his experiences. A memoir perhaps rather than a review paper. Your post has me thinking about 'independent scientists' more generally. Some defy characterisation as their work is just outside normal categories. An example could be George Spencer-Brown with his Laws of Form, a book that appeared as a complete and dense argument. Spencer-Brown was a colourful character to say the least. Others are sort of 'semi-detached' and do publish papers in mainstream academic journals and do collaborate. Julian Barbour would be my example here. I would imagine that a fair amount of self-confidence is needed (along with resources) to work in this way.
dang 4y ago
Maybe so, but from a HN point of view, avoiding predictable repetition (especially when it's bilious) is the high order bit. There's a great deal of similar practice in other places too but the inverted cult of personality in Wolfram threads is sui generis, I think. I tried once to make the case that it's a mirror image of the the thing it's criticizing, but IIRC that didn't go over too well. I suppose the cynically exaggerated version of this would be to say bad science is fine as long as it doesn't lead to crap threads. Note that I didn't say that.

by ajb 4y ago

2b3a51 4y ago

As another poster put it perhaps Dr Wolfram has chosen to work outside the community recently. The early cellular automata papers were published in peer reviewed journals, and the OA contains an anecdote about the external refereeing of one short paper. I read the early autobiographical material as just an older man recording his experiences. A memoir perhaps rather than a review paper. Your post has me thinking about 'independent scientists' more generally. Some defy characterisation as their work is just outside normal categories. An example could be George Spencer-Brown with his Laws of Form, a book that appeared as a complete and dense argument. Spencer-Brown was a colourful character to say the least. Others are sort of 'semi-detached' and do publish papers in mainstream academic journals and do collaborate. Julian Barbour would be my example here. I would imagine that a fair amount of self-confidence is needed (along with resources) to work in this way.

dang 4y ago

Maybe so, but from a HN point of view, avoiding predictable repetition (especially when it's bilious) is the high order bit. There's a great deal of similar practice in other places too but the inverted cult of personality in Wolfram threads is sui generis, I think. I tried once to make the case that it's a mirror image of the the thing it's criticizing, but IIRC that didn't go over too well. I suppose the cynically exaggerated version of this would be to say bad science is fine as long as it doesn't lead to crap threads. Note that I didn't say that.