3 ms·

Why is a researcher called a creator in this article? Are they not a fact discoverer or truth revealer? It's unclear to me researchers should “own” truths pri

Why is a researcher called a creator in this article? Are they not a fact discoverer or truth revealer? It's unclear to me researchers should “own” truths prior research and public patronage enabled them to unearth. // note: research != invention, i.e., Space X experimenting until systems and machinery can land a rocket on a barge is not “research”, but testing and documenting characteristics of fuels in a vacuum as the environment swings from -100C to 120C is

poincaredisk 2y ago
>Space X experimenting until they can land a rocket on a barge is not “research Why? What else could it be if not research?
- sam_bristow 2y ago
  The usual pairing is research and _development_ isn't it.
- Terretta 2y ago
  > what else could it be if not research? it could be experimentation and learning about your own invented system and mechanic, not uncovering of existing truths the word "search" makes this more clear, the answers research finds already exist, we just didn't find them yet. that is not the case for inventions that don't work, and need to be experimented with until they work. there may, certainly, be some incidental research discovery while attempting to make an invention work (e.g. if Space X had hit on something new about physics itself that had been causing their prior experiments to fail) -- but nobody "owns" such truth discovered, while of course they own their invention that works as a result of applying known truths to a creation.
svnt 2y ago
I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted, it is a valid and important point. Researchers discover empirical structure. They don’t create it. It isn’t art. The article seems to want to bring rights holders together in a way that isn’t valid. A scientific paper is normative. Its construction is closer to a pull request than artwork.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Seems like an unnecessary nitpick, which is discouraged in HN. you can argue the opposite way and say artists "discover empirical structure" that resonates with a lot of people. But colloquially we call it an "art style", often named after the "discoverer".
  - svnt 2y ago
    Interesting inverted/remapped take. The form is what is under copyright, and the form of the paper is normative, while I would argue the form of the art, if normative, makes it illustration and not art. If I change the hypothesis and data of a paper I change the entire meaning and consequence of the paper, although the style remains constant. If I change the palette and subject of a painting, the style remains the same and it would not be considered anything more than trivially novel. If style is art, then there is no art in scientific papers.

poincaredisk 2y ago

>Space X experimenting until they can land a rocket on a barge is not “research Why? What else could it be if not research?

sam_bristow 2y ago
The usual pairing is research and _development_ isn't it.
Terretta 2y ago
> what else could it be if not research? it could be experimentation and learning about your own invented system and mechanic, not uncovering of existing truths the word "search" makes this more clear, the answers research finds already exist, we just didn't find them yet. that is not the case for inventions that don't work, and need to be experimented with until they work. there may, certainly, be some incidental research discovery while attempting to make an invention work (e.g. if Space X had hit on something new about physics itself that had been causing their prior experiments to fail) -- but nobody "owns" such truth discovered, while of course they own their invention that works as a result of applying known truths to a creation.

svnt 2y ago

I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted, it is a valid and important point. Researchers discover empirical structure. They don’t create it. It isn’t art. The article seems to want to bring rights holders together in a way that isn’t valid. A scientific paper is normative. Its construction is closer to a pull request than artwork.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
Seems like an unnecessary nitpick, which is discouraged in HN. you can argue the opposite way and say artists "discover empirical structure" that resonates with a lot of people. But colloquially we call it an "art style", often named after the "discoverer".
- svnt 2y ago
  Interesting inverted/remapped take. The form is what is under copyright, and the form of the paper is normative, while I would argue the form of the art, if normative, makes it illustration and not art. If I change the hypothesis and data of a paper I change the entire meaning and consequence of the paper, although the style remains constant. If I change the palette and subject of a painting, the style remains the same and it would not be considered anything more than trivially novel. If style is art, then there is no art in scientific papers.