By the way, the way she found the "true value" of the integral to verify her method was to graph it on graph paper and count the squares underneath.
Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations (2007)
51–60 of 122 posts
Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations (2007)
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
The quote in the post above indicates that the name was in use before the paper was published.
Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations (2007)
#53>unlike calculus—wasn’t something that physicists were expected to take during high school.
did you guys have integrals in HS?
I had only limits and derivatives for optimization via extremas finding
EU, Poland.
Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations (2007)
#54Tangental 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!
Osteopaths in the UK and most other countries are quacks. Osteopaths in the US are real physicians. This is not a trick of labeling: In the US osteopath training is a science-based, rigorous medical program identical to that of an MD. Yes DOs are also trained in the historical "chiropractic"-like stuff, but most of the ones I know deemphasize that in practice.
Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations (2007)
#55>unlike calculus—wasn’t something that physicists were expected to take during high school. did you guys have integrals in HS? I had only limits and derivatives for optimization via extremas finding EU, Poland.
We did both. I think it makes sense because the muscle memory is almost identical.
Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations (2007)
#56Earlier 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…
> And I don't understand why people would need a citation instead of just saying its calculated using the trapezoidal rule. They didn't know the trapezoidal rule.
If they didn't they couldn't have used it and they wouldn't have needed a citation either.
The point is that the "because the investigators were unable to cite an unpublished work, I submitted it for publication at their request" justification doesn't make much sense. She could have just explained to them that no citation was needed for something so trivial.
Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations (2007)
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how many of those are from papers discussing failure of peer review or interdisciplinary communication rather than the value of the formula itself.
Funnily enough it doesn't matter for your career. Bureaucracies stop at counting citations, sometimes weighted by impact factor.
All citations are good citations, even the bad ones.
Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations (2007)
#58>unlike calculus—wasn’t something that physicists were expected to take during high school. did you guys have integrals in HS? I had only limits and derivatives for optimization via extremas finding EU, Poland.
European here. Yes.
Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations (2007)
#59I think it's important to note why the 75 citations isn't just 75 dummies who also haven't heard of integration. If you're writing a diabetes paper and want to use integration for your analysis (even if you are fully aware of its background), you'll be forced to justify your approach and defend it's applicability to diabetes. Far easier to say 'as per Tai et al...' and take it as given. You see this a lot- 'we used […
'as per Newton, Leibniz et al...' isn't good enough?
Seriously though: if it is indeed true that you need to justify it this way, that is insane: this is just basic calculus. Do you have to justify every single statistics calculation also? Do you have to say 'as per Whoever et al' every time you calculate the standard deviation of something? What referee would object to 'estimating the area using the trapezoidal rules gives us...'? (note that this paper was purely about the CALCULATION of the area, not justifying whether or not the area is a useful thing to know)
Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations (2007)
#60>unlike calculus—wasn’t something that physicists were expected to take during high school. did you guys have integrals in HS? I had only limits and derivatives for optimization via extremas finding EU, Poland.
We did both. I think it makes sense because the muscle memory is almost identical.
"both"?
I mentioned 3 things :P