5 ms·

The diffusion of scientific discovery

46 points by nerdlogic 3y ago

smitty1e 3y ago
I don't understand the need for a labyrinth. Why not simple particles in solution?
- BSEdlMMldESB 3y ago
  I don't understand it either, but I do think it reflects what academia really feels like and I imagine the closer the academic research is to real world industry uses, the more obstacles there will be (due to 'trade secrecy', and the like)
- autonomousErwin 3y ago
  I think it's the metaphor for spending your research career banging your head against a wall (in this case - literally)
- gwern 3y ago
  A maze can be thought of a series of binary choices, so you'd get a different distribution if you spawn particles from successful ones than from a random walk in 2D. However, I don't think this gets you any better a model of scientific discovery than existing statistical models of combinatorial innovations (https://www.newthingsunderthesun.com/pub/2elwp33m/release/2#combinatorial-innovation-and-technological-progress-in-the-very-long-run https://www.newthingsunderthesun.com/pub/2elwp33m/release/2#...), and it may be the same as some others.
- teekert 3y ago
  The walls are obstacles for moving on. Like storage and transport are obstacles for solar energy. But once we find solutions, we hit a next barrier. They can be large (ie not so much changes) or small (we get a series of follow up innovations, because energy has just becomes much cheaper and more abundant).
nologic01 3y ago
There is something that rings true about the metaphor. Discovery is mostly an incremental process of trial and error around a neighborhood which occasionally probes a new opening and then there is a rush of activity in that new plane. The simplest mathematical model of this might be a Levy flight [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9vy_flight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9vy_flight
unclesaamm 3y ago
While I think simulations and models are interesting, this model is just way too simplified to give any real insight. Here's an example of a leading scholar in the field -- Allie Morgan -- developing a simple model on this exact question! https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-018-0166-4 https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epj... > Title: Prestige drives epistemic inequality in the diffusion of scientific ideas > Abstract: The spread of ideas in the scientific community is often viewed as a competition, in which good ideas spread further because of greater intrinsic fitness, and publication venue and citation counts correlate with importance and impact. However, relatively little is known about how structural factors influence the spread of ideas, and specifically how where an idea originates might influence how it spreads. Here, we investigate the role of faculty hiring networks, which embody the set of researcher transitions from doctoral to faculty institutions, in shaping the spread of ideas in computer science, and the importance of where in the network an idea originates. We consider comprehensive data on the hiring events of 5032 faculty at all 205 Ph.D.-granting departments of computer science in the U.S. and Canada, and on the timing and titles of 200,476 associated publications. Analyzing five popular research topics, we show empirically that faculty hiring can and does facilitate the spread of ideas in science. Having established such a mechanism, we then analyze its potential consequences using epidemic models to simulate the generic spread of research ideas and quantify the impact of where an idea originates on its longterm diffusion across the network. We find that research from prestigious institutions spreads more quickly and completely than work of similar quality originating from less prestigious institutions. Our analyses establish the theoretical trade-offs between university prestige and the quality of ideas necessary for efficient circulation. Our results establish faculty hiring as an underlying mechanism that drives the persistent epistemic advantage observed for elite institutions, and provide a theoretical lower bound for the impact of structural inequality in shaping the spread of ideas in science.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  > We find that research from prestigious institutions spreads more quickly and completely than work of similar quality originating from less prestigious institutions. That's a bit of a leap though, isn't it? How to establish that the works are of 'similar quality'?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
Looking at their little toy simulation, one thing jumps out at me. Is there any particular reason that we should expect the labyrinth to not be pathological in its shape? Does the universe somehow owe it to us for it to be traversable? One could, for instance, design the shape of the labyrinth such that most of the little jiggling dots not only can't make their way out, but also get trapped in a direction very far from the actual truth. I hope that the random nature of the universe takes it a little easier on us than that.

46 points by nerdlogic 3y ago

smitty1e 3y ago

I don't understand the need for a labyrinth. Why not simple particles in solution?

BSEdlMMldESB 3y ago
I don't understand it either, but I do think it reflects what academia really feels like and I imagine the closer the academic research is to real world industry uses, the more obstacles there will be (due to 'trade secrecy', and the like)
autonomousErwin 3y ago
I think it's the metaphor for spending your research career banging your head against a wall (in this case - literally)
gwern 3y ago
A maze can be thought of a series of binary choices, so you'd get a different distribution if you spawn particles from successful ones than from a random walk in 2D. However, I don't think this gets you any better a model of scientific discovery than existing statistical models of combinatorial innovations (https://www.newthingsunderthesun.com/pub/2elwp33m/release/2#combinatorial-innovation-and-technological-progress-in-the-very-long-run https://www.newthingsunderthesun.com/pub/2elwp33m/release/2#...), and it may be the same as some others.
teekert 3y ago
The walls are obstacles for moving on. Like storage and transport are obstacles for solar energy. But once we find solutions, we hit a next barrier. They can be large (ie not so much changes) or small (we get a series of follow up innovations, because energy has just becomes much cheaper and more abundant).

nologic01 3y ago

There is something that rings true about the metaphor. Discovery is mostly an incremental process of trial and error around a neighborhood which occasionally probes a new opening and then there is a rush of activity in that new plane. The simplest mathematical model of this might be a Levy flight [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9vy_flight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9vy_flight

unclesaamm 3y ago

While I think simulations and models are interesting, this model is just way too simplified to give any real insight. Here's an example of a leading scholar in the field -- Allie Morgan -- developing a simple model on this exact question! https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-018-0166-4 https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epj... > Title: Prestige drives epistemic inequality in the diffusion of scientific ideas > Abstract: The spread of ideas in the scientific community is often viewed as a competition, in which good ideas spread further because of greater intrinsic fitness, and publication venue and citation counts correlate with importance and impact. However, relatively little is known about how structural factors influence the spread of ideas, and specifically how where an idea originates might influence how it spreads. Here, we investigate the role of faculty hiring networks, which embody the set of researcher transitions from doctoral to faculty institutions, in shaping the spread of ideas in computer science, and the importance of where in the network an idea originates. We consider comprehensive data on the hiring events of 5032 faculty at all 205 Ph.D.-granting departments of computer science in the U.S. and Canada, and on the timing and titles of 200,476 associated publications. Analyzing five popular research topics, we show empirically that faculty hiring can and does facilitate the spread of ideas in science. Having established such a mechanism, we then analyze its potential consequences using epidemic models to simulate the generic spread of research ideas and quantify the impact of where an idea originates on its longterm diffusion across the network. We find that research from prestigious institutions spreads more quickly and completely than work of similar quality originating from less prestigious institutions. Our analyses establish the theoretical trade-offs between university prestige and the quality of ideas necessary for efficient circulation. Our results establish faculty hiring as an underlying mechanism that drives the persistent epistemic advantage observed for elite institutions, and provide a theoretical lower bound for the impact of structural inequality in shaping the spread of ideas in science.

jacquesm 3y ago
> We find that research from prestigious institutions spreads more quickly and completely than work of similar quality originating from less prestigious institutions. That's a bit of a leap though, isn't it? How to establish that the works are of 'similar quality'?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

Looking at their little toy simulation, one thing jumps out at me. Is there any particular reason that we should expect the labyrinth to not be pathological in its shape? Does the universe somehow owe it to us for it to be traversable? One could, for instance, design the shape of the labyrinth such that most of the little jiggling dots not only can't make their way out, but also get trapped in a direction very far from the actual truth. I hope that the random nature of the universe takes it a little easier on us than that.