Viewing profile — acenes

This system is very much alive in academia: a graduate student (apprentice) trains under a professor (master) to become a member of the guild (academia), after which they can go of…

A recent example: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/26/science/moon-crash-japan-...

Ioannidis is just butthurt that he has been criticized for being wrong https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-j...

Do we no longer have the attention span to just read text? Do we need 'multiple entry points'? Do we have to convince the reader that each chunk of text will provide 'value' separa…

But the reason why so many historical figures were tutored or homeschooled is because there was no adequate public education system. This is confusing correlation for causation. In…

Thanks for the response. Is there any plan for Quarto to support live code, e.g. the reader can change the code and update the output? Or a feature that makes it easy to have a com…

So, why should one use the next generation? Because it is not tied to R or Python? We're all using one or the other so that doesn't sound like a convincing reason to completely cha…

I currently use bookdown and have dabbled with Jupyterbook. Why should I use this instead? I don't see any advantages, esp. for scientific and technical books / websites.

Does anyone know of such a systematic replication effort in other fields of science? I wonder if the conclusion would be much different.

We can't have a robot umpire for check swings because MLB doesn't define what a swing is - it is not in the rulebook.

Reviews of Nagel's book by actual philosophers: https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/mind-and-cosmos-why-the-material... https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/do-you-only-have-b... http…

Such a disappointing essay. There are so many ways in which the title or the first paragraph could be true without such garbled non sequiturs.

I was vaguely aware of the 'feud', was more curious about your judgment that "Wilson has proved to be correct in every particular" (because I don't think this is true). Is there a …

care to elaborate?

Here is another heuristic: if the paper is published in Nature/Science/Cell (for bio-related applications), then highly likely to be wrong/not generalizable.

Anybody look at the original paper? I'm not convinced at all by their Fig 2 - that's more a blob than a precession.

Sorry, but "back of the napkin" calculations are quick order-of-magnitude type estimates based on reasonable guesses or first principles, not by looking up numbers on the web (napk…

"The simplest explanation is that these genes are adaptive." Really? That's the simplest explanation? https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.1979.008...

It seems most commenters here think that the results can be explained by bias (e.g. on the part of teachers), or cultural factors / environment (e.g. schools are set up for women t…

Let's not jump to conclusions. Yes, there have been numerous cases of "misses." But to evaluate the value of peer review for science, we need to know the "correct rejection" rates …