5 ms·

University hosted announcements (e.g. rice.edu announces a major breakthrough) have incentives that are so out of wack it's basically clickbait at this point.

University hosted announcements (e.g. rice.edu announces a major breakthrough) have incentives that are so out of wack it's basically clickbait at this point. Researchers oversell their results for publishing and funding purposes. Then the university oversells those results to draw in students/investors. Curious if others feel the same way or if I'm just too cynical at this point...

anoxor 3y ago
30 % of physics and chemistry can’t be replicated. 70 % of soft science can’t be replicated. Most of what we know about sociology may just be fake, and given that a huge foundation of progressive thought around rase, sex, and gender is based on this, this is a big problem. at a minimum, this isn’t far off
- OnlineGladiator 3y ago
  > 30 % of physics and chemistry can’t be replicated. Is this true? I left academia a long time ago, but I'd be surprised if it's that good. I'd actually suspect it's the inverse and only 30% can be replicated.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Who knows? Most science nobody attempts to replicate. The major stuff yes, but small things are not worth the cost or time.
beambot 3y ago
I understand the cynicism. Academic reporting is a hard & thankless gig. The non-cynical version: Half of a researcher's job is disseminating results -- to other researchers & the populace at large. I'd much rather have excited university announcements (even over-reaching ones) than the rage-porn news that dominates the airwaves & "mainstream news" homepages. Besides: Any serious researcher will just revert to the actual peer-reviewed source material. It was linked in the article. Here it is: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-023-01680-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-023-01680-4 And here's the PDF: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.24.477527v2.full.pdf https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.24.477527v2.... As someone who has peripheral knowledge in this space (piezeoelectric & magnetostrictive devices and neural stimulation & recording): I've never seen a magnetostrictive material capable of developing a DC bias. Further, driving the device in a non-resonant mode for neural stimulation is even more new to me -- that's quite fascinating, and I'd say that article lives up to the hype from my 1000-ft vantage. I.e. This was effective reporting.
- imnotdang 3y ago
  [flagged]
Terr_ 3y ago
That makes me think of this comic on the news cycle: https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174 https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

anoxor 3y ago

30 % of physics and chemistry can’t be replicated. 70 % of soft science can’t be replicated. Most of what we know about sociology may just be fake, and given that a huge foundation of progressive thought around rase, sex, and gender is based on this, this is a big problem. at a minimum, this isn’t far off

OnlineGladiator 3y ago
> 30 % of physics and chemistry can’t be replicated. Is this true? I left academia a long time ago, but I'd be surprised if it's that good. I'd actually suspect it's the inverse and only 30% can be replicated.
- bluGill 3y ago
  Who knows? Most science nobody attempts to replicate. The major stuff yes, but small things are not worth the cost or time.

beambot 3y ago

I understand the cynicism. Academic reporting is a hard & thankless gig. The non-cynical version: Half of a researcher's job is disseminating results -- to other researchers & the populace at large. I'd much rather have excited university announcements (even over-reaching ones) than the rage-porn news that dominates the airwaves & "mainstream news" homepages. Besides: Any serious researcher will just revert to the actual peer-reviewed source material. It was linked in the article. Here it is: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-023-01680-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-023-01680-4 And here's the PDF: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.24.477527v2.full.pdf https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.24.477527v2.... As someone who has peripheral knowledge in this space (piezeoelectric & magnetostrictive devices and neural stimulation & recording): I've never seen a magnetostrictive material capable of developing a DC bias. Further, driving the device in a non-resonant mode for neural stimulation is even more new to me -- that's quite fascinating, and I'd say that article lives up to the hype from my 1000-ft vantage. I.e. This was effective reporting.

imnotdang 3y ago
[flagged]

Terr_ 3y ago

That makes me think of this comic on the news cycle: https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174 https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]