Live data from Hacker News

Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations (2007)

fliptomato.wordpress.com

41–50 of 122 posts

Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations (2007)

#41
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The full paper on available on sci-hub for those who can use it. Am wondering if it's legal to post sci-hub links on HN?

I don't think there's any need to. People who want to use SciHub can simply copy the DOI link into it.

Thanks but I know that. To answer my own question, seems the quoting of a sci-hub link would be a civil matter in the US at least. Moderators will decide for themselves.

Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations (2007)

#42

I appreciate the dig at fellow physicists for not recognizing group theory. As a physicist myself, I’m somewhat impressed by the power of many mathematical abstractions which have not yet utilized. Although I think this Avenue of discovery (searching in mathematics textbooks for things to apply to physics) is now fairly well-mined.

Interesting. I've watched nuclear engineers struggle with higher-order programming concepts and biomedical informatists (MD + PhD CS) struggle with software engineering. And, damn, I saw some exceptionally-beautiful code from some security researcher grad students.. like 17 levels of nested blocks.

I guess not everyone can use Rust, Haskell, OCaml, or Idris. :sigh emoji:

Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations (2007)

#43
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was really on the author's side till I read these responses. Initially in my head it was just a case of misunderstanding or ignorance, but through her letters she has made clear that she thinks it is significant enough. This is borne out by her tone which is palpatably aggressive and contradictory at some points. She says she didn't publish this model for glory, but she also named it after herself. Also, no effort…

> She says she didn't publish this model for glory, but she also named it after herself. She didn't name it after herself, the users did: > collegues ... began using it and addressed it as "Tai's formula" As is typically the way with eponymous scientific works, people citing the work add the author's name e.g. Maxwell's equations or Higgs' boson. The author doesn't typically declare "I have discovered X, which I shal…

There's huge difference in significance though. Maxwell's equations have their distinctive name because he did discover a missing piece in a system (set) of equations that had been known before as separate phenomena and yet weren't used as a whole. The missing piece he discovered on paper, with a pure logical reasoning alone, that would bring consistency to the set of the equations, was later identified and confirmed as electromagnetic fields in reality.

Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations (2007)

#44

The author of this blog post is wrong to say this is 'integration'[0], and is also later wrong to say it's the 'trapezoidal rule'[1]. It seems to me that it's diagnostically useful to have a standardised method for estimating the area under the curve, rather than everyone inventing their own method. [0](since you don't know the whole function, you only know point estimates at particular moments in time) [1] (trapezoi…

This comment is just wrong. It's still integration even if you only have enough data to approximate the integral. Also, Wikipedia's definition of the trapezoidal rule permits intervals with different sizes.[1]

I don't know why you'd defend a researcher who lacked basic math knowledge, and more damningly refused to acknowledge her mistake once it was brought to light.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapezoidal_rule

Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations (2007)

#45
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was really on the author's side till I read these responses. Initially in my head it was just a case of misunderstanding or ignorance, but through her letters she has made clear that she thinks it is significant enough. This is borne out by her tone which is palpatably aggressive and contradictory at some points. She says she didn't publish this model for glory, but she also named it after herself. Also, no effort…

> She says she didn't publish this model for glory, but she also named it after herself. She didn't name it after herself, the users did: > collegues ... began using it and addressed it as "Tai's formula" As is typically the way with eponymous scientific works, people citing the work add the author's name e.g. Maxwell's equations or Higgs' boson. The author doesn't typically declare "I have discovered X, which I shal…

> people citing the work add the author's name e.g. Maxwell's equations or Higgs' boson.

I don't think this rule applies here, because the paper introducing "Tai's rule" calls it "Tai's rule" rather than others citing it. As if Higgs called it Higgs' boson in his paper.

Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations (2007)

#47

Tangental point here, but I find Medical student's relationship to Science quite fascinating. For instance there's a trend for medical students to believe less in evolution than other biology students EDIT: reference to it in this story: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/21/religion.highe...

What frightens me is that osteopath magical thinkers (DOs) are allowed to practice medicine in the US just like MDs. They're glorified chiropractors!

https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-an-osteopath#train...

"After graduating from medical school, DOs take a rigorous national licensure exam, which contains the same material as the exam to become an MD. Both kinds of doctor are licensed by state medical examination boards."

Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations (2007)

#48

Tangental point here, but I find Medical student's relationship to Science quite fascinating. For instance there's a trend for medical students to believe less in evolution than other biology students EDIT: reference to it in this story: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/21/religion.highe...

What frightens me is that osteopath magical thinkers (DOs) are allowed to practice medicine in the US just like MDs. They're glorified chiropractors!

And MDs come from the historical branch of medicine that prescribed bloodletting and heroin.

Now both MDs and DOs take a more modern approach.

> Osteopathic medical school curricula are virtually identical to those at schools granting the MD degree

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Osteopathic_Medicine...

Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations (2007)

#49
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was really on the author's side till I read these responses. Initially in my head it was just a case of misunderstanding or ignorance, but through her letters she has made clear that she thinks it is significant enough. This is borne out by her tone which is palpatably aggressive and contradictory at some points. She says she didn't publish this model for glory, but she also named it after herself. Also, no effort…

> She says she didn't publish this model for glory, but she also named it after herself. She didn't name it after herself, the users did: > collegues ... began using it and addressed it as "Tai's formula" As is typically the way with eponymous scientific works, people citing the work add the author's name e.g. Maxwell's equations or Higgs' boson. The author doesn't typically declare "I have discovered X, which I shal…

She used the name "Tai's model" in the original paper.[1] I would consider that naming the method after herself.

[1] (PDF link https://math.berkeley.edu/~ehallman/math1B/TaisMethod.pdf

Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations (2007)

#50

I appreciate the dig at fellow physicists for not recognizing group theory. As a physicist myself, I’m somewhat impressed by the power of many mathematical abstractions which have not yet utilized. Although I think this Avenue of discovery (searching in mathematics textbooks for things to apply to physics) is now fairly well-mined.

Interesting. I've watched nuclear engineers struggle with higher-order programming concepts and biomedical informatists (MD + PhD CS) struggle with software engineering. And, damn, I saw some exceptionally-beautiful code from some security researcher grad students.. like 17 levels of nested blocks. I guess not everyone can use Rust, Haskell, OCaml, or Idris. :sigh emoji:

I can’t speak for nuclear engineers and biomedical informatists, but physicists are usually pretty good at abstract programming concepts... But you have to overcome the characteristic laziness (doing only what’s necessary to solve the problem at hand).
Post reply on HN