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

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2019

nobelprize.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 108 posts

Re: The Nobel Prize in Physics 2019

#61

Post by denzil_correa »

soVeryTired wrote: post #50
denzil_correa wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Among the bigger countries, Switzerland has the most per capita Nobel prizes. Be wary of any "per-capita" statistics. Statistically, averages work only if distributions are symmetric. Mean is a poor indicator of an asymmetric distribution. So, the question is - Do we have symmetric distributions for talent within each geographical area? We see similar arguments in sport but the assumption of symmetrical (normal) di…

> Statistically, averages work only if distributions are symmetric. I'm not really sure what you mean by that but I don't think you're correct. The law of large numbers applies to any distribution with finite first moment. You're probably right in that factors like wealth (and wealth distribution rather than per-capita wealth) affect a country's scientific output. But your stats argument is a bit wobbly :)

> I'm not really sure what you mean by that but I don't think you're correct.

Can you explain, in context to what I said - what exactly is incorrect? I am very well versed with the theory of Law of Large numbers. The question is - "Why does the Law of Large Numbers tell us that per capita is a the right metric to compare Nobel Prize output of different countries?"

Re: The Nobel Prize in Physics 2019

#62

Post by whatshisface »

I am not such a fan of this one, they essentially gave two separate half-prizes this year. James Peebles’ contribution to science was not related to exoplanets, nor was the exoplanet discovery related to cosmology. Instead, they could have waited a year, and given them sequentially. Has this ever happened before in Nobel history? Will this lead to an era where one hundred $10,000 Nobels are handed out each year? ;)

Re: The Nobel Prize in Physics 2019

#63

Post by BeetleB »

whatshisface wrote: post #62

I am not such a fan of this one, they essentially gave two separate half-prizes this year. James Peebles’ contribution to science was not related to exoplanets, nor was the exoplanet discovery related to cosmology. Instead, they could have waited a year, and given them sequentially. Has this ever happened before in Nobel history? Will this lead to an era where one hundred $10,000 Nobels are handed out each year? ;)

It happens all the time. 2000 is an obvious example.

Re: The Nobel Prize in Physics 2019

#65

Post by searine »

whatshisface wrote: post #62

I am not such a fan of this one, they essentially gave two separate half-prizes this year. James Peebles’ contribution to science was not related to exoplanets, nor was the exoplanet discovery related to cosmology. Instead, they could have waited a year, and given them sequentially. Has this ever happened before in Nobel history? Will this lead to an era where one hundred $10,000 Nobels are handed out each year? ;)

>Has this ever happened before in Nobel history?

In recent years the nobel committee has been grouping unrelated prizes in the same field.

For example the parasitology prize a few years ago for treating two different parasite diseases (roundworm/malaria).

I think its a good thing. It takes two similar discoveries, neither of which are big enough to warrant a solo prize and combines them to give credit to a field which has made advances. I was working in a parasitology department at the time and people were losing their minds about how awesome it was that the field was acknowledged on a world stage.

Re: The Nobel Prize in Physics 2019

#66

Post by mruts »

soVeryTired wrote: post #50
denzil_correa wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Among the bigger countries, Switzerland has the most per capita Nobel prizes. Be wary of any "per-capita" statistics. Statistically, averages work only if distributions are symmetric. Mean is a poor indicator of an asymmetric distribution. So, the question is - Do we have symmetric distributions for talent within each geographical area? We see similar arguments in sport but the assumption of symmetrical (normal) di…

> Statistically, averages work only if distributions are symmetric. I'm not really sure what you mean by that but I don't think you're correct. The law of large numbers applies to any distribution with finite first moment. You're probably right in that factors like wealth (and wealth distribution rather than per-capita wealth) affect a country's scientific output. But your stats argument is a bit wobbly :)

All he’s saying that the further mean and median are from each, the more importsnt it is that we think about what an average implies about the sample.

Re: The Nobel Prize in Physics 2019

#67

Post by helpPeople »

michalu wrote: post #32
shafyy wrote: post #2

Two of the laureates are Swiss. This brings the total number of Swiss laureates to 28, making it the third country with most Nobel prizes per capita. The first two are Saint Lucia and Luxemburg, which have 180k and 600k inhabitants respectively. Among the bigger countries, Switzerland has the most per capita Nobel prizes. Interestingly, UK is on number 9 on that list and has a significantly bigger population than the…

Note that these counts include Nobel prize for peace which skews the ratings a bit. If we looked at science and literature only the results would look different. Obviously, assuming the main point of this ranking is to measure a favourable ecosystem for science and literature.

Don't take any of their awards seriously.

It's become a politicized award rather than merit.

Ignore and move on.

Re: The Nobel Prize in Physics 2019

#69

Post by mruts »

joelbluminator wrote: post #22
safgasCVS wrote: post #12

Still cant believe the economics profession managed to convince people it deserves a seat at the table of the hard sciences

That's a pretty good point considering Turing award winners (computer science) get so little media exposure compared to Nobel winners. Same for Field medal winners...

I wouldn’t call CS a hard science, it should be grouped with liberal arts like math.

Re: The Nobel Prize in Physics 2019

#70

Post by GuB-42 »

ProstetnicJeltz wrote: post #15
safgasCVS wrote: post #12

Still cant believe the economics profession managed to convince people it deserves a seat at the table of the hard sciences

I don't think anyone is looking at the Nobel prizes to categorise sciences. The 'table of hard science' according to Alfred Nobel also includes medicine (not science, but we'll let it pass), literature (really not science), and peace (really really not science). Anyway, the Nobel Prize for economics is not actually a Nobel prize anyway.

Medicine is interesting.

Some of it is hard science, with peer-reviewed papers, experiments and statistics. There is even some overlap with chemistry.

Some of it is engineering. Doctors are closer to engineers than they are to scientists. They have a problem (a sick patient who needs help), constraints (time, availability, cost, ...), tools (drugs, diagnosis tools, ...), and need to turn all that into a solution.

Some of it is craftsmanship. Surgeons are like mechanics for the human body, a job requiring dexterity and practical thinking.

Some of it is care. With nurses needing as much empathy as they need practical skills.

Post reply on HN