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

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

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 204 posts

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

#41

Post by Jtsummers »

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...

I haven't watched Community, but that is a long form version of my description to others (when asked) of why I don't watch The Big Bang Theory. I gave it a few episodes, I caught more when others watched it. It never clicked for me why I would be considered a part of the target audience when you often don't laugh with the characters, but at them. Thanks for the link.

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

#42

Post by mikeash »

fargolime wrote: post #32
jbri wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 min…

You're right, of course. It's not pseudoscience because it's a blog targeted at a non-scientific audience. It's pseudoscience because it's complete nonsense.

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

#43

Post by Jtsummers »

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?

I'm trying to figure out where your non sequitur came from. The brain being adaptable does not mean its ability to adapt is infinite and no one, but you, suggested that. Did they waterboard you in your academic program? Is that supposed to be an analogy to some other behavior? I can't even conceive of what they might do that would be close to that hard on a person's mind.

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

#44

Post by EpicEng »

antiterra wrote: post #12
EpicEng wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh, still funny, and the jokes are often more clever than your typical network fare. EDIT: I love that I get downvoted for saying that I like a show. You guys must be a blast at parties.

Yeah. Really clever jokes like saying "Nintendo 64" then pausing for laughter.

So... you pick out one joke you don't like and presume that no one else should like the show? Right... so you don't like it. Who cares? I certainly don't. I like it. There, I cancelled out your dislike.

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

#45

Post by EpicEng »

Brakenshire wrote: post #25
doorhammer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't watch the show, personally, but it's irritating that everyone has to come down on things like this. People spend their time doing all kinds of crazy things. If it's fun and you enjoy it, then I think that's great. There are worse ways to spend your time. Apparently, that's not good enough, though. Everyone has to critique how other people enjoy themselves. I've read books on algorithm analysis and I just exci…

It's public culture, and popular enough to be held representative of a large subgroup of people. There's no reason why people shouldn't give their honest opinion of it.

It's a network sitcom... seriously, a network sitcom... I know I don't care for the opinions of people who base their beliefs on pop culture. You should give it a try.

And the parent wasn't trying to deny anyone their right to free speech, yeesh. He is just annoyed by those who feel the need to tell others what they should and should not like.

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

#46

Post by 001sky »

na85 wrote: post #39
001sky wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Oh good, are we using hyperbole now?

Hmm...does that ryhme with 'absurdity'?

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

#47

Post by hyp0 »

sampo wrote: post #10
mattmanser wrote: post #2

I'm a little disappointed that the article didn't address the obvious question. If he didn't publish any papers after that, what did he actually do? The entire article actually seems to undermine his point.

This will not answer your question, but at the end of his CV here, there is his list of publications. http://www.ph.ed.ac.uk/higgs/peter-higgs

aha! just as I suspected... during 1951-1964, he published 16 papers, better than one per year. But, after his breakthrough, he eased back to 9, over 1965-2013... and only the first 3 look to be research papers (the remaining 6 seem to be historical recountings).

Now, I don't blame him - do something incredible, why not slack off? He's way more accomplished than I could ever hope to be.

But if you want an exemplar of doing great work, the pace before his breakthrough, leading up to it, seems the better guide. i.e. one per year.

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

#48

Post by amerika_blog »

School is an obedience/memorization test, the exact opposite of the real-world applied thinking skills that are needed.

Private schooling is bad; public schooling is even worse. That's where ideology substitutes for academics as well.

Memorizing 20 ways to do something, and then finding a way to cram in each one on a test in an "applied" situation, leads to indiscriminate use of technique and poor debugging skills.

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

#49

Post by andrewflnr »

Jtsummers wrote: post #43
001sky wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm trying to figure out where your non sequitur came from. The brain being adaptable does not mean its ability to adapt is infinite and no one, but you, suggested that. Did they waterboard you in your academic program? Is that supposed to be an analogy to some other behavior? I can't even conceive of what they might do that would be close to that hard on a person's mind.

It's a crude, sarcastic form of reductio ad absurdum. TrainedMonkey said, in effect, "making it difficult to focus is fine because the brain is adaptable". 001sky showed that "the brain is adaptable" is not a strong argument. This is true precisely because the brain's ability to adapt is not infinite. Energy you spend adapting to something is energy you're not using to do directly useful things, and that energy has to be justified with more than a statement of "well, you can do it and there might be some benefits" (which is almost exactly what TrainedMonkey said, just phrased less flatteringly).

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

#50

Post by andrewflnr »

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…

What is being discussed here is precisely the scenario when their name is being called, specifically the frequency with which it's called (if I may stretch the illustration). That your colleague is one of those who can concentrate with other conversations happening is wholly irrelevant; AFAIK, whether one's concentration is helped or hindered by ambient noise is genetic.
Post reply on HN