Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bias Against Novelty in Science

nber.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 46 posts

Re: Bias Against Novelty in Science

#31

Post by Hondor »

jrapdx3 wrote: post #24

Having experienced bias against publishing truly novel findings, I can testify this form of bias is a potential hazard re: scientific progress. Back in the early 2000's, in the course of clinical practice I encountered some unexpected outcomes of treatment which correlated to a particular, if unexpected diagnosis. I tried to find info about this, but to my surprise a thorough search of the literature came up empty. I…

It sounds like your review process went very well. Those hardened anti-novelists have probably rejected piles of genuinely crank material. They're needed to keep the literature free of true rubbish. Of course they're not perfect so sometimes rubbish gets through and sometimes good work gets blocked, but if the researcher really believes in their work, they'll go to extra lengths to break through, as you did.

Maybe the world would be a slightly better place if your overly skeptical reviewer had reviewed this http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-paper.htm

Re: Bias Against Novelty in Science

#32

Post by dnautics »

digi_owl wrote: post #17
biomcgary wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a number of things contribute to the rise(?) of groupthink in the sciences (particularly in biology). One is the increasing age [0] of the peers in the peer review systems. Younger people are typically willing (and able) to perform more risky novel research. However, the biggest single factor is the drop in science funding, which leads to fear and an inherently conservative response (on the part of both grant…

There is also the whole NPM-ish attempts at using things like publication frequency and number of references to gauge the ROI on research, and therefore the performance of the scientists involved. All this runs smack into Cambell's law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell's_law

wow, thanks, I had never heard of Campbell's law, and it really puts into a concise form what I believe about a lot of things (from science publishing to interest rate manipulation).

Re: Bias Against Novelty in Science

#33

Post by pdonis »

ploplop wrote: post #23

My aunt's been studying the sun magnetic field for decades. She has measured (yes, measured) parts of the sun inner magnetic field (quite complex to do actually). Div(B) not null there. She can't get it published because Maxwell's equations and it's a "new" discovery. Maxwell starts with "in the void", I think we can agreed that centre of the sun is not the void. It is incredible that scientist MEASURING stuff can't…

> Maxwell starts with "in the void", I think we can agreed that centre of the sun is not the void.

Maxwell's Equations apply in the presence of sources, i.e., not just "in the void". That includes the equation Div B = 0. In other words, "sources" are electric charges and currents; there are no magnetic charges and currents. So, as GFK_of_xmaspast commented, most likely there is an error in her measurements somewhere, and she should be trying to find it.

Re: Bias Against Novelty in Science

#34

Post by byroniczero »

akiselev wrote: post #29
byroniczero wrote: post #5

Obligatory mention of Rupert Sheldrake: http://www.sheldrake.org/books-by-rupert-sheldrake/the-scien...

Obligatory mention of pseudoscience in a topic about real science: check. Might as well hail Deepak Chopra as Einstein reincarnated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

Obligatory knee-jerk accusation of “pseudoscience” at the mention of Sheldrake: check. It’s a topic about overly conservative attitudes in the scientific community. Thanks for demonstrating that tendency with your insulting comment.

Re: Bias Against Novelty in Science

#35

Post by digi_owl »

dnautics wrote: post #32
digi_owl wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also the whole NPM-ish attempts at using things like publication frequency and number of references to gauge the ROI on research, and therefore the performance of the scientists involved. All this runs smack into Cambell's law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell's_law

wow, thanks, I had never heard of Campbell's law, and it really puts into a concise form what I believe about a lot of things (from science publishing to interest rate manipulation).

I think i originally ran into a British variant, called Goodheart's Law, while reading about reforms to their National Health Service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart's_law

The particular example being of how hospitals where given a negative rating based on how many patients were left waiting on stretchers (the rating system being introduced in an attempt at producing market like forces within the NHS). To get around this, the staff started removing the wheels on the stretchers while the patient was waiting. That way it was a bed, not a stretcher...

Re: Bias Against Novelty in Science

#37

Post by yabby »

Status-quo bias is a phenomenon that is well documented in the psychology literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias Bias for the established ways of thinking seems especially common (to me) in the physical sciences. I do not think that should be a surprise since the fundamental view of natural processes does not advance quickly. Perhaps this is why Einstein remarked that if you really believed in your ideas then you should quit being an academic and go get a job like a lighthouse keeper. That maybe works in mathematical physics, where all you need is a pen and paper, but in the other sciences it does not seem like a great plan. What I have observed many do when they find their ideas fall foul of the times is they go get a line-of-business job that does not require a lot of mental energy. That is a plan I have seen work for many. Finance is particularly good for that. It is a field where knowing how to think in contrarian fashion and also knowing how to run with the herd are both valuable. I see a lot of mathematical physics folks do that as a way to reconcile the glacial pace of scientific development with the urge to think and do something new and innovative. There are quite a few famous mathematicians who paid the bills with finance work. For instance, Gauss wrote insurance contracts and used his distribution to help price the risk. Of course, in modern times Jim Simons runs a hedge fund.

Re: Bias Against Novelty in Science

#38

Post by jrapdx3 »

Hondor wrote: post #31
jrapdx3 wrote: post #24

Having experienced bias against publishing truly novel findings, I can testify this form of bias is a potential hazard re: scientific progress. Back in the early 2000's, in the course of clinical practice I encountered some unexpected outcomes of treatment which correlated to a particular, if unexpected diagnosis. I tried to find info about this, but to my surprise a thorough search of the literature came up empty. I…

It sounds like your review process went very well. Those hardened anti-novelists have probably rejected piles of genuinely crank material. They're needed to keep the literature free of true rubbish. Of course they're not perfect so sometimes rubbish gets through and sometimes good work gets blocked, but if the researcher really believes in their work, they'll go to extra lengths to break through, as you did. Maybe th…

Keeping "rubbish" out of the journals is a reasonable goal, though judging by what's in the journals I read, you're right rubbish still leaks through from time to time.

I believe I was the beneficiary of good fortune in overcoming the barriers, but luck is a very thin and unreliable conduit to success. Indeed I know authors not as lucky, and their good work was blocked.

Fields of research are often highly specialized and a small community of interest can become insulated from voices outside that world. It's my impression that was the basis of the difficulty I encountered.

Not that I have a solution to the problem, but I've wondered how many worthwhile novel contributions by "outsiders" not affiliated with a field's main research centers are being lost under current peer review regimes.

Re: Bias Against Novelty in Science

#39

Post by return0 »

What if it is an education issue? Maybe by training young scientists for wayy too long before they start doing science, we "overtrain" them, and their mental models are over-fitted to current science. Naivete can sometimes be a major source of creativity (that's why people who cross disciplines sometimes have great impact).

Re: Bias Against Novelty in Science

#40

Post by teekert »

jrapdx3 wrote: post #24

Having experienced bias against publishing truly novel findings, I can testify this form of bias is a potential hazard re: scientific progress. Back in the early 2000's, in the course of clinical practice I encountered some unexpected outcomes of treatment which correlated to a particular, if unexpected diagnosis. I tried to find info about this, but to my surprise a thorough search of the literature came up empty. I…

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It very good that you pushed back so hard, I see no other way to overcome this problem. The status quo was also built on (usually) a lot of evidence, it is not good if it would be easy to overthrow.
Post reply on HN