throwaway-wroc

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by throwaway-wroc 6y ago

   oh i completely agree that a binary distinction between 'tools' and 'science' is not useful. it's also extremely hard to be a good scientist without being very good at 'tools'. however, editors at peer-re
2. 2.▲
   by throwaway-wroc 6y ago

   yes, in 2020 you mostly cannot do science without software, electricity, desks and chairs and buildings, printers, pick your own irreplaceable tool. yet building these things to enable research is emphatically not itself scientific research
3. 3.▲
   by throwaway-wroc 6y ago

   most of anything is 'uninspired garbage'. not sure what it's to do whether a particular phd should be awarded. no-one is proposing that numpy isn't useful or people developing / maintaining tools aren't doing g
4. 4.▲
   by throwaway-wroc 6y ago

   > The scientific method is based on building on the shoulders of giants. > The whole of the process is science no. scientific research is proposing a useful model of an observable phenomenon. this is what you train for during a phd, a
5. 5.▲
   by throwaway-wroc 6y ago

   props to your work and similar to numpy, i assume it has been immensely useful for loads of people. but 'building the underlying infrastructure that tons of people use' is not science. in my department we had to fail a phd student