Peter Higgs: I wouldn't be productive enough for today's academic system • Hacker News Board

Re: Peter Higgs: I wouldn't be productive enough for today's academic system

#31

Post by derefr » Sat, Dec 07, 2013, 2:04 AM UTC

cinquemb wrote: post #19

rpedela wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally yes, but if someone, Higgs in this case, is saying there is something broken with academia's definition of productivity then it begs the question what should that definition be? What was Higgs doing that was more important or more productive than publishing papers? It is a totally fair question given the circumstances. Had Higgs never said anything then I wouldn't be interested in how he spent his time in t…

So you're saying because of his experiences with academia and the status he has from his hard work, he needs to help set new goal posts for the masses to pigeon hole themselves into which could resemble the situation in which he says we have today? It is a fair question if you don't expect any answers from him, but from the question itself, it doesn't seem that way. It seems like a question that would be more apt for…

I think the question was simply, "what was the standard he was measuring himself by, by which he considers himself to be successful?" It doesn't have to be a yardstick applied to anyone else--but presuming that Higgs doesn't believe himself to have wasted his life after the publication of his famous works, I wonder what he thinks makes that true.

Re: Peter Higgs: I wouldn't be productive enough for today's academic system

#32

Post by fargolime » Sat, Dec 07, 2013, 2:09 AM UTC

jbri wrote: post #28

fargolime wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been a student of that blog. It doesn't ignore cosmological redshift. Rather, the dark energy solution notes that space measurably expands, but in a relative (it depends on the observer) way as opposed to the absolute (observed by all observers) way that is generally accepted today. When space measurably expands (whether relative or absolute) you have cosmological redshift. Space itself not expanding is the abse…

It seems unreasonable to claim that academia would reject the idea out of hand when no-one's even written a paper to attempt to submit to a peer-reviewed journal. If you showed me scientific papers that had been rejected by peer reviewers, then you might have a point. But if it's entirely articles targeted at laypeople and no scientific papers, it's pseudoscience.

It's not pseudoscience for that reason alone. You're using the definition incorrectly, even if yours is the definition commonly improperly used. For example Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity thought experiment is targeted at laypeople and is both scientific and a logical proof. Had he put the idea into a blog and nothing more it still would've been an advance of physics, regardless whether anyone else paid it mind.

(I probably won't say anything more because I get tired of this type of discussion.)

Re: Peter Higgs: I wouldn't be productive enough for today's academic system

#33

Post by paul » Sat, Dec 07, 2013, 2:09 AM UTC

kulkarnic wrote: post #27

paul wrote: post #3

I feel like the inability to focus for long periods of time is holding back progress in many areas. If we can't even stay away from email for a few days, how can we clear our minds of conventional thinking?

A few days? People get upset if you haven't replied in an hour. Seriously though, long periods of solitude is not what we need. I'd not be productive if I became a hermit, but I'd be a lot more productive if I had periods of quiet time, punctuated by moments of discussion. This is how thinkers and artists (and hackers) worked for a long time, before we wrongly convinced ourselves that being interruptible improves pro…

It's not about solitude so much as the ability to control the contents and direction of our thoughts. Being responsive on email often requires giving up that control, fragmenting our attention and preventing the formation of larger thoughts. It provides short term gains, but we don't see what we're losing.

Re: Peter Higgs: I wouldn't be productive enough for today's academic system

#34

Post by TrainedMonkey » Sat, Dec 07, 2013, 2:10 AM UTC

paul wrote: post #3

I feel like the inability to focus for long periods of time is holding back progress in many areas. If we can't even stay away from email for a few days, how can we clear our minds of conventional thinking?

Brain is remarkably adaptable. I would not go as far as labeling new type of academia as deficient. Sure it is different, does it make it better or worse? Toss a coin.

Somewhat related story: I work with someone who recently got a PHD. That person can concentrate and work on a hard problem even when there is conversation going on. Only when name of the person is called do they interrupt their work and start paying attention.

Re: Peter Higgs: I wouldn't be productive enough for today's academic system

#35

Post by lutorm » Sat, Dec 07, 2013, 2:12 AM UTC

Tarrosion wrote: post #29

lutorm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably thinking about things that never resulted in papers because they didn't work out, or else working on those 10. Working for 4 years on a paper isn't out of the question if it's totally original work and one is being super careful. Not that doing that is rewarded these days, which I assume was exactly his point.

Even for those of us just learning, far more "productivity" is required. If I wrote a paper every 4 years, my PhD program would be a 10-14 year program.

That's exactly his point.

Besides, once upon a time, you could get a PhD for a single paper. It's just that they are a dime a dozen these days.

Re: Peter Higgs: I wouldn't be productive enough for today's academic system

#36

Post by cinquemb » Sat, Dec 07, 2013, 2:33 AM UTC

derefr wrote: post #31

cinquemb wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying because of his experiences with academia and the status he has from his hard work, he needs to help set new goal posts for the masses to pigeon hole themselves into which could resemble the situation in which he says we have today? It is a fair question if you don't expect any answers from him, but from the question itself, it doesn't seem that way. It seems like a question that would be more apt for…

I think the question was simply, "what was the standard he was measuring himself by, by which he considers himself to be successful?" It doesn't have to be a yardstick applied to anyone else--but presuming that Higgs doesn't believe himself to have wasted his life after the publication of his famous works, I wonder what he thinks makes that true.

Asking for definitions of what people should do, when ultimately the individual will be the one who will have a choice to make regardless of the circumstances, seems like yardsticking to me (that's what definitions are used for, right?), though I suppose I could wonder about that too.

I also suppose I could wonder about how many aspiring/(non)tenured PHD's spend their entire lives producing publication after publication without an inkling of fame or any major contributions relative to those of the likes of Higgs (or in general, anything any individual decides to do in the spectrum of their peers), who think that they haven't wasted their life.

Re: Peter Higgs: I wouldn't be productive enough for today's academic system

#37

Post by rschmitty » Sat, Dec 07, 2013, 2:33 AM UTC

GuiA wrote: post #7

Systemic33 wrote: post #6

I loved the ending: "He has never been tempted to buy a television, but was persuaded to watch The Big Bang Theory last year, and said he wasn't impressed." The show is despite what some think, not a celebration of science, but a ridicule of science, and takes the stereotypes to new levels. Edit: I also watch the show, but as the article that GuiA links to mentions, the show wnats you to laugh at the nerds, and not t…

Re: Big Bang Theory, I enjoyed this post: http://butmyopinionisright.tumblr.com/post/31079561065/the-p...

That guy went way overboard. I share some of the "nerds" hobbies and I don't mind the jokes at all

Re: Peter Higgs: I wouldn't be productive enough for today's academic system

#38

Post by 001sky » Sat, Dec 07, 2013, 2:35 AM UTC

TrainedMonkey wrote: post #34

paul wrote: post #3

I feel like the inability to focus for long periods of time is holding back progress in many areas. If we can't even stay away from email for a few days, how can we clear our minds of conventional thinking?

Brain is remarkably adaptable. I would not go as far as labeling new type of academia as deficient. Sure it is different, does it make it better or worse? Toss a coin. Somewhat related story: I work with someone who recently got a PHD. That person can concentrate and work on a hard problem even when there is conversation going on. Only when name of the person is called do they interrupt their work and start paying at…

Brain is remarkably adaptable.

So, waterboarding is consistent with an environment conducive to academic research?

Re: Peter Higgs: I wouldn't be productive enough for today's academic system

#39

Post by na85 » Sat, Dec 07, 2013, 2:39 AM UTC

001sky wrote: post #38

TrainedMonkey wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brain is remarkably adaptable. I would not go as far as labeling new type of academia as deficient. Sure it is different, does it make it better or worse? Toss a coin. Somewhat related story: I work with someone who recently got a PHD. That person can concentrate and work on a hard problem even when there is conversation going on. Only when name of the person is called do they interrupt their work and start paying at…

Brain is remarkably adaptable. So, waterboarding is consistent with an environment conducive to academic research?

Oh good, are we using hyperbole now?

Re: Peter Higgs: I wouldn't be productive enough for today's academic system

#40

Post by 001sky » Sat, Dec 07, 2013, 2:43 AM UTC

Tarrosion wrote: post #29

lutorm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably thinking about things that never resulted in papers because they didn't work out, or else working on those 10. Working for 4 years on a paper isn't out of the question if it's totally original work and one is being super careful. Not that doing that is rewarded these days, which I assume was exactly his point.

Even for those of us just learning, far more "productivity" is required. If I wrote a paper every 4 years, my PhD program would be a 10-14 year program.

honestly, what is "a paper"? a publication is an atrifact of an idea. says nothing about the quality of that idea. today's system is just geared toward printing out a lot of garbage. one way to understand this is that all subjects have similarly increased publications over the years. does that mean each subject is progressing as a function of the subject's publications? of course not. they are being told to "jump" for money, so those in academy respond: "how high"? Acdemics are truly just rats in a maze at this stage of the game. They are guaranteed a salary by tenure, but not "funding" to actually do their work. Tenure offers no job security, in the broader sense, of having your costs covered.