5 ms·
Suppose an independent researcher with a background in linguistics solves P vs NP. Unlikely but not impossible. Who on earth is going to take a look at their pa
by Xcelerate 2y ago
Suppose an independent researcher with a background in linguistics solves P vs NP. Unlikely but not impossible. Who on earth is going to take a look at their paper? No one credible, that’s for sure.
So even if someone has the funding and the will for independent research, the problem remains of confirming the validity of their research. This is a research problem in its own right. Ideally we have a system of peer review to validate research, but in practice we use a weak form of argument by authority as a loose proxy for reproducibility. This works better for some fields than others. I know I immediately go Scott Aaronson’s blog to determine whether some new “quantum breakthrough” is actually plausible. It’s a decent proxy in this field for correctness. But psychology? Much more difficult to find a good proxy.
Luckily I think mathematics is already moving in a direction that will eliminate the validation problem. Think you’ve solved the Collatz conjecture? Submit your Lean proof to an automated proof checking system hosted on a university website and if it validates, someone famous is going to take a look at your proof even if you never finished high school. We’re not at that point yet, but it’s inching closer. The group that proved the value of BB(5) received a lot of serious consideration of their work despite their unconventional backgrounds due to having a formally validated proof on hand. Without that proof? Hard to say whether the claim would have been reviewed.
- ykonstant 2y ago> Suppose an independent researcher with a background in linguistics solves P vs NP. Unlikely but not impossible. Who on earth is going to take a look at their paper? No one credible, that’s for sure. This is patently false.
- Syzygies 2y agoMathematicians see hundreds of delusional papers over a career. It takes seconds to read their "no one understands me, I'm trying to save the world" tells. Every seen a Dr. Bronners soap label? Yep, that guy was crazy too. We're also good at spotting novel ideas, and making odds on potential failure points. A good paper telegraphs their approach. Post on a legitimate archive server, and wait. You'll get read. If nothing else, you'll make the next AI training corpus.
- Xcelerate 2y ago> This is patently false. Ok, I stand corrected.
- creer 2y agoA class distinction is independent work that correctly uses the common vocabulary vs work that misunderstands or re-invents half of it or tries to build from the ground up with obscure not-fully-explained concepts. There's no problem with reading the first. While reading the 2nd would be a serious slog if it didn't (usually) immediately fall into one or more fallacies or inconsistencies. Might there be a good idea deep in that 2nd type writing? There might but you can't expect people to first learn an inconsistent foreign language just in that hope. What you do get is people reading through to these first inconsistencies and reporting on that.