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

141–149 of 149 posts

Re: The Absurdity of Nobel Prizes in Science

#141

Post by schoen »

greeneggs wrote: post #81
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…

> Seeing all of these people listed definitely lends some weight to the "it's kind of unreasonable for only 1-3 people to win a Nobel for this sort of work" view for me. But what is the alternative? The article doesn't give much detail; it just says, "Why not award the scientific prizes to teams and organizations, just like the Peace Prize can be? The price of reform is low, and the cost of avoiding it is high." But…

Thanks for presenting this counterpoint.

Re: The Absurdity of Nobel Prizes in Science

#142

Post by KGIII »

StavrosK wrote: post #119
KGIII wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was a young child, I used to daydream about winning a Nobel. I didn't daydream about winning an Emmy or a Grammy, but I did dream of winning a Nobel. (And Formula 1 championship races, but that's not important right now.) Do kids today daydream of getting a Nobel? Science was a Pretty Big Deal when I was young. We were just getting started with space exploration and splitting the atom was pretty new. We kids t…

> And Formula 1 championship races, but that's not important right now. It's always important.

This is way off-topic and I accept the karma hit...

At night, I'd sit up with my back propped up by pillows. I'd tuck the blanket underneath my feet and tuck it in firmly by my sides. I'd prop a bit of the blanket out away from my chest and I was inside my imaginary monocock, doing laps at Monaco. I'd make the appropriate sound effects as I shifted and accelerated, braked and cornered at the edge of the envelope. Sometimes, I'd push it past the limits of the car and my own ability and would suffer the horrifying crash as a consequence.

Much to the dismay of the missus, I sometimes still do. I just don't usually throw myself off the bed as I imaginary crash.

Re: The Absurdity of Nobel Prizes in Science

#143

Post by adekok »

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.

When you do your work, do you share awards and raises with the cafeteria staff? Does the cafeteria staff understand the work you do? Do they contribute materially to it? i.e. technical contributions which are meaningful in the field?

No? Then the analogy is false.

The difference with physics (for example) is that when a paper has 160 co-authors (as in my experience) all of those people contributed materially to the result. They are all experts in the field, and they all understand the contents of the paper.

Re: The Absurdity of Nobel Prizes in Science

#144

Post by jgamman »

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.

aren't corporations legal 'persons'? ;-)

Re: The Absurdity of Nobel Prizes in Science

#145

Post by dekhn »

pcnix wrote: post #115
dekhn wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

any ancillary benefits that occur as side effects of funding a physics project, could almost certainly have been achieved, without the funding of the physics project. for example, direct investment into disease research is much more likely to have short-term impact. that's not to say ancillary discoveries with impact outside the original domain don't occur- they're just not as cost effective.

But then that means you wouldn't have funded the physics project. In the long term, research in fundamental physics is the main thrust for human scientific progress, which is why it is given the importance it is. Ancillary benefits are, by definition, not the primary thrust of what research is about. Apologies if I misunderstood your comment.

Most of the big expensive physics projects actually have little to no impact on daily life, or really scientific progress they're mainly about confirming theories that were thought up a long time ago. Dollar-for-dollar medical research has a much greater impact than physics

Re: The Absurdity of Nobel Prizes in Science

#146

Post by HeavenBanned »

DanBC wrote: post #66
SubiculumCode wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am shocked and curious at the number of downvotes for the above satire. I don't think it was horribly executed. I mean I hope they understood it is satire. Or perhaps they don't think that post-docs and graduate students are exploited?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7609289 > I agree with what people have already said, but I think there's one more point to add: people usually over-estimate how funny their own comments are. We have a tendency to think, "This idea of mine is hilarious! And different! Surely this witticism is the exception." And we are usually wrong. When you have N people all doing that, there's a lot of noise. > I try to gentl…

I thought it was pretty funny, and I have no say in it. And that was extremely uncharitable. Here's a more charitable one: "OUR COMMUNITY DIDN'T GET YOUR JOKE."

Re: The Absurdity of Nobel Prizes in Science

#147

Post by projectant »

circlefavshape wrote: post #132
projectant wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I understand if you feel otherwise, but I see no unfairness in Nobels going only to project leaders and PIs.

I think the sore losers act entitled to something they didn't earn. I don't think that means I'm missing something about humans. Why would you want to suggest that? Your argument ought to stand on its own not by pretending I'm less. That's not nice. Nor kind. But, look, I am missing many many things in my understanding and experience about humans, and life, and every topic, because I don't understand anything completely or nearly so. And I've only experienced what I have in my life. I'm okay with that.

If you think people prefer fairness, then maybe you didn't face what I did, or maybe you just reacted differently (and if you did then you better teach me how!). I learned people prefer themselves, to fairness, and will cooperate or cheat as either pays off.

I'm no better than that. Let me show you: If you don't think the same way as me, then clearly there is something missing about your understanding of humanity, or your experience. See? I like to cheat, too. When it pays off. Or maybe it's fair to give like you get? What do you think, given that you said there's something missing in my understanding, was that comment fair and justified?

My view is both of us are missing many things about understanding and experience, and if we think differently it's just because we had different experiences and reactions. There's not one true way. And I think that's fine. Diversity right?

So if we can put all that nastiness behind us, what's our common ground, how do you think we ought to make the Nobel prizes more fair and still have them be effective? Do you think we ought to preserve, dismantle or alter the hierarchies and institutions that have worked for science? And do you think we can agree that "fairness" is not a universal good, and that in this case we have (possibly competing) interests such as progress, or effectiveness?

Re: The Absurdity of Nobel Prizes in Science

#148

Post by fatjokes »

vidarh wrote: post #116
fatjokes wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Nobel laureates in peace are basically bullshit. Look at Obama---good president, but how many drone strikes did he order, and Aung San Suu Kyi--currently accused of genocide. The Nobel laureates in science indisputably pushed forth the frontiers of human understanding. Frankly, I think the Nobel prizes in the sciences are carrying the name.

While I agree the price to Obama was ridiculous, you need to see that one basically as an expression of just how much relief the election of Obama was for the rest of the world. It was a "please prove you're not like Bush" prize. The election of Obama is the first time I've seen widespread parties with non-Americans celebrating the election of an American president. Don't underestimate just how terrifying a lot of th…

You're right. She is not accused of genocide. More like aiding and abetting.

Re: The Absurdity of Nobel Prizes in Science

#149

Post by lstyls »

BurningFrog wrote: post #134
ams6110 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

BDFL?
Post reply on HN