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

The Absurdity of Nobel Prizes in Science

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 149 posts

Re: The Absurdity of Nobel Prizes in Science

#131

Post by Pigo »

SEMW wrote: post #108
cooper12 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On top of that, the Nobel committee is limited by the rules of their foundation The article address this argument though and says that the Foundation has already stretched the rules.

> The article address this argument though and says that the Foundation has already stretched the rules. That bit of the article is arguably misleading. The foundation is not stretching its rules in awarding it to three people. That stretching (from one to three) was done immediately after Nobel's death as part of the settlement of his Will, and enshrined in the statutes of the foundation ("nor shall it be divided in…

Just to play devils advocate, where should the line be drawn? None of this work could be done if it weren't for the cafeteria staff that provided brain food, or the spouses who shouldered the responsibilities of any parents who worked on the project while providing moral support. It could get messy.

Re: The Absurdity of Nobel Prizes in Science

#132

Post by circlefavshape »

projectant wrote: post #122
projectant wrote: post #89

Do people not want to especially reward the small numbers of organisers for their efforts?

What's wrong with rewarding the project leaders? Yes, being part of the team is one achievement, being leader of the team is another achievement on top of that. Sorry there's not "participation prizes" for everybody, but there are concrete important differences between being team member and team leader , as much as some seem to want to delude themselves otherwise and give themselves the "consolation prize" of feeling…

I see nothing wrong with recognising the project leaders.

If you think, however, that the "sore losers" want to change the rules of the game solely in order to give themselves a better chance of winning, then there's something missing in your understanding of humans. People like fairness

Re: The Absurdity of Nobel Prizes in Science

#133

Post by ideonexus »

adekok wrote: post #14

I was a collaborator on the SNO project. I worked with Art McDonald, who co-won the 2015 Nobel prize in physics for the project. There were hundreds of people involved. We couldn't have done it without the hundreds of people. While Art was a fantastic guy and a tireless worker, a good chunk of his contribution was management. i.e. A competent manager. He not only understood all of the physics involved, but a good chu…

It concerns me that we award managers all the credit for collaborative innovations. History remembers Thomas Edison as a great inventor with 2,332 patents. This is a distortion though. He was mostly a manager, who stamped his name on everything his building of inventors produced. I see the same thing happening with the mythologizing of Steve Jobs as an inventor instead of as a CEO.

This "great man" view of history distorts our perceptions. It tricks us into believing any lone person can rise from nothing. The reality is that it takes collaboration, funding, and often privilege. People might be a little happier with their lives if they knew the "great man" concept is just propaganda, and that simply contributing to something great is a worthwhile aspiration. I know I'm happier for discovering this in my mid-life.

Re: The Absurdity of Nobel Prizes in Science

#134

Post by BurningFrog »

ams6110 wrote: post #128
bjourne wrote: post #58

I think that there is a similar problem in the software world when it comes to free software projects. Who created Python? Linux? Perl? Wikipedia? If your answer is Guido van Rossum, Linus Torvalds, Larry Wall and Jimmy Wales you are about as wrong as the Nobel Prize committee. But sometimes there are a single guy who is responsible for a lot of the project even if that person is almost never credited, like Tom Lane…

On the other hand, would we have Python, Linux, Perl, or Wikipedia without those people? They had the vision and they made it happen. Sure many other people could have done it. But those people did do it. It's much easier to be a contributor, than a founder/leader. The founders/leaders deserve more credit.

Yeah, the did something very important for those projects.

But what do we call it?

Re: The Absurdity of Nobel Prizes in Science

#135

Post by BurningFrog »

BurningFrog wrote: post #93
yyyyip wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't he, or I, diminishing the legitimacy of economics? If someone had made up a fake Nobel prize in psychology I would diminishing the legitimacy of that too. The field of economics is far, far less rigorous than any of the hard sciences for which Nobel prizes are awarded. The fake Nobel prize for economics is strongly disputed by much of the Nobel family, Keynes, and it makes economists act more blowhard, self…

Economics is a pretty hard science. Certainly more robust than "peace" or "literature". Less than Physics and Medicine, sure. Not sure how to compare it to all the fields under "medicine".

Sorry, the first "Medicine" should be "Chemistry".

Re: The Absurdity of Nobel Prizes in Science

#136

Post by Bromskloss »

schoen wrote: post #35

The abstract of the 5,154-author paper that this article mentions: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.11... I first thought it was this one http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JInst...3S8003A which is also by Aad et al., but that one has a mere 2,926 authors (because it includes only the ATLAS collaboration and not the CMS collaboration). Seeing all of these people listed definitely lends some we…

I think it's unreasonable that everyone involved is considered an author of the article.

Re: The Absurdity of Nobel Prizes in Science

#137

Post by apoorvkumar »

yyyyip wrote: post #96
apoorvkumar wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I say this as someone spends a fair chunk of my time reading economics books and blogs. Them credentials!

:rolleyes: ok Apoorv, if you want credentials, here's Hayek's speech agreeing with me. https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/la...

Interesting read. Thanks for sharing that.

I read Nobel in Economics as 'Nobel in maths (largely statistical optimization) and behavioural psychology'. I personally believe the field adds significant value to society.

That said, I do think the award is rather liberally given away. We credit scientists only when their theories test out in practice with sufficient evidence whereas we are more willing to give economists a pass in the name of 'not enough data' or 'valid under certain conditions' . I think we should award only the fundamental time tested truths (statistical or otherwise) which are so entrenched in the way of the world that its discovery has little or no bearing on its exact function. This would award Nash/Selten but not Merton/Scholes. The basic option pricing ended up being just a bunch of really cool but limited equations which tend to be self fulfilling prophecies until when they don't.

Re: The Absurdity of Nobel Prizes in Science

#138

Post by soundwave106 »

tanilama wrote: post #82
d33 wrote: post #9

Personally I find peace prizes abominable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laur... They just got way too political.

Peace prize is not treated seriously, not by audience not even by itself. It is political stunt nowadays.

It always has been political. This means that the prize can be controversial at times. That's just the nature.

Past controversial examples would be the 1935 award to Carl Von Ossietzky (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Ossietzky), who angered the type of folks that do not like people who reveal state secrets. Or Cordell Hull's 1945 award (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordell_Hull), which was controversial because in 1939 he rejected a ship of 936 Jews seeking asylum from Germany. Or Linus Pauling's Peace Prize in 1962 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling), which was controversial among those who disagreed with his left wing pacifist views (to the point where he was labeled a suspected communist in the 1950s, as was fashionable at the time).

(We haven't even gotten to Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat yet...)

Re: The Absurdity of Nobel Prizes in Science

#139

Post by acomar »

Pigo wrote: post #131
SEMW wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The article address this argument though and says that the Foundation has already stretched the rules. That bit of the article is arguably misleading. The foundation is not stretching its rules in awarding it to three people. That stretching (from one to three) was done immediately after Nobel's death as part of the settlement of his Will, and enshrined in the statutes of the foundation ("nor shall it be divided in…

Just to play devils advocate, where should the line be drawn? None of this work could be done if it weren't for the cafeteria staff that provided brain food, or the spouses who shouldered the responsibilities of any parents who worked on the project while providing moral support. It could get messy.

Same way we define authorship -- material contribution.

Re: The Absurdity of Nobel Prizes in Science

#140

Post by Bromskloss »

SEMW wrote: post #108
cooper12 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On top of that, the Nobel committee is limited by the rules of their foundation The article address this argument though and says that the Foundation has already stretched the rules.

> The article address this argument though and says that the Foundation has already stretched the rules. That bit of the article is arguably misleading. The foundation is not stretching its rules in awarding it to three people. That stretching (from one to three) was done immediately after Nobel's death as part of the settlement of his Will, and enshrined in the statutes of the foundation ("nor shall it be divided in…

> The foundation is not stretching its rules in awarding it to three people. That stretching (from one to three) was done immediately after Nobel's death

I'm baffled! I have read the will of Alfred Nobel before, but it never struck me that it doesn't allow for sharing of a prize. Here is the part of the will [0], in English translation, that deals with the prizes, for anyone who wants to read it:

> The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiological or medical work by the Caroline Institute in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm, and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be a Scandinavian or not.

(It also says that the peace prize should be given to one person, not an organisation.)

[0]" rel="nofollow">https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/will-full.html>

Post reply on HN