4 ms·
Nothing wrong with creating rounder wheels; especially for training. I was at a conference where a panel of scientists were discussing how they manage research
by craigyk 12y ago
Nothing wrong with creating rounder wheels; especially for training.
I was at a conference where a panel of scientists were discussing how they manage research in their labs, and how to promote better productivity from their students with a focus on high-throughput methods. At this point, a single scientist on the panel interrupted with "we shouldn't focus on training for these intellectually bankrupt approaches, I'm interested in training scientists who can think."
When I was first learning to code I was completely overzealous with performance optimization and I implemented every single data structure and algorithm myself, from scratch. This included a lot of computer vision, and optimization and fitting code, and studying books like Numerical Algorithms, etc. While not efficient, I sure did learn a lot.
- dalke 12y ago"a single scientist on the panel interrupted ..." The response from the other panelist wasn't going to be the correct one, which is "Duh! Not helpful!" Is that scientist making the claim based on evidence, or based on personal belief? If so, what is the evidence? Do we train everyone to think the same way? Do we train them to think about problems in specific areas? Do we train them to think about historical problems? Would improved knowledge of the literature help identify unexplored paths, and keep students from revisiting old, well-trodden paths, or should some old things be left mostly unvisited?