2 ms·

"It's formalized in Lean, isn't it?" If that's the current burden of proof required in your world for maths then that's fine! 't'ain't in my world: I want to

by gerdesj 14d ago

"It's formalized in Lean, isn't it?" If that's the current burden of proof required in your world for maths then that's fine! 't'ain't in my world: I want to see peer reviewed and published. Surely that's not too much to ask. Its not perfect but generally works rather well for maths. I'm not a sodding programmer so please don't assume everyone here is one. I'm not a mathematician either but I do have standards: Your counter argument is a poorly constructed and inappropriately deployed example of "proof by whataboutism".

HotHotLava 14d ago
In what world is peer review a higher standard than formal verification in Lean? Not in the world mathematicians have been living in for the past decades at least. Nearly all big theorems that have been formalized so far had been published beforehand, and it was usually regarded as a step up in rigor. Wrong results get published in peer reviewed journals all the time.
- aarstid 13d ago
  I find it really strange the way “peer-reviewed” is used by the general public as some gold standard of truth. As a former academic who has been there, the process is extremely arbitrary and variable. Are people aware that the “peer” refers not to a community or a committee, but literally to one random guy or maybe a couple with zero accreditation? And that the journal editor can do whatever they want with this peer’s “review” including completely ignoring it?
  - rcbdev 13d ago
    I keep thinking the exact same thing every time I'm asked to peer review a paper.
  - gerdesj 13d ago
    "I find it really strange the way “peer-reviewed” is used by the general public as some gold standard of truth." OK but this member of the general public has at least subscribed to New Scientist since 1987, nine O levels, two A levels, two AS levels and a HND in Civ Eng. All pretty mediocre but I have a fair idea on how sciencing is supposed to work and how it ... actually works. Obviously, I ended up in IT. I should also point out that maths "peer reviewed" is a bit special. For example Mr Wiles went through quite a maelstrom before his proof of some dodgy marginalia was accepted as "true".
  - jjk166 12d ago
    Admittedly, peer review originally referred to the fact that the journal being published was read ("reviewed") by your peers, and thus there would be the opportunity for them to provide rebuttals after publication. The process the term now refers to in academia only emerged in the 50's and 60's (Nature for example wasn't "peer reviewed" until 1967). It was literally a marketing ploy to make journals sound more prestigious which got legitimized when certain grant agencies and regulatory bodies started including it in their requirements. All the best science is published in journals that describe themselves as peer reviewed, the government says science not published in such journals isn't up to snuff, and taken literally it seems useful. It's no wonder the public thinks it's an important and long established part of the scientific process.

by gerdesj 14d ago

HotHotLava 14d ago

In what world is peer review a higher standard than formal verification in Lean? Not in the world mathematicians have been living in for the past decades at least. Nearly all big theorems that have been formalized so far had been published beforehand, and it was usually regarded as a step up in rigor. Wrong results get published in peer reviewed journals all the time.

aarstid 13d ago
I find it really strange the way “peer-reviewed” is used by the general public as some gold standard of truth. As a former academic who has been there, the process is extremely arbitrary and variable. Are people aware that the “peer” refers not to a community or a committee, but literally to one random guy or maybe a couple with zero accreditation? And that the journal editor can do whatever they want with this peer’s “review” including completely ignoring it?
- rcbdev 13d ago
  I keep thinking the exact same thing every time I'm asked to peer review a paper.
- gerdesj 13d ago
  "I find it really strange the way “peer-reviewed” is used by the general public as some gold standard of truth." OK but this member of the general public has at least subscribed to New Scientist since 1987, nine O levels, two A levels, two AS levels and a HND in Civ Eng. All pretty mediocre but I have a fair idea on how sciencing is supposed to work and how it ... actually works. Obviously, I ended up in IT. I should also point out that maths "peer reviewed" is a bit special. For example Mr Wiles went through quite a maelstrom before his proof of some dodgy marginalia was accepted as "true".
- jjk166 12d ago
  Admittedly, peer review originally referred to the fact that the journal being published was read ("reviewed") by your peers, and thus there would be the opportunity for them to provide rebuttals after publication. The process the term now refers to in academia only emerged in the 50's and 60's (Nature for example wasn't "peer reviewed" until 1967). It was literally a marketing ploy to make journals sound more prestigious which got legitimized when certain grant agencies and regulatory bodies started including it in their requirements. All the best science is published in journals that describe themselves as peer reviewed, the government says science not published in such journals isn't up to snuff, and taken literally it seems useful. It's no wonder the public thinks it's an important and long established part of the scientific process.