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

#161

Post by doorhammer » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 12:28 AM UTC

mhurron wrote: post #53

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…

> My life was so much easier to live when I decided that it was okay to peacefully allow other people enjoy things that I don't. Yes it is, it will also be easier when you don't complain about people complaining about things they don't like.

Right, that's a zinger response, but the main thing I'm driving at isn't that I want my life to be as easy as it possibly can be. I'm driving at the value of not being judgemental and condescending, especially if the topic is really arbitrary. I think the case could be made that in some circumstances judgement and criticism are perfectly valid and useful, but I don't see vitriolic condemnations of someone's sitcom preference as ever being particularly useful to anyone. Moreover, I think that it's actively socially counter-productive.

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

#162

Post by mcguire » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 12:41 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…

Here's an experiment for you: when they're doing that, call out their name every five minutes or so. See how long it takes before they try to kill you.

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

#163

Post by EpicEng » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 12:46 AM UTC

Double_Cast wrote: post #160

EpicEng wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like your ok with "contributing nothing" yourself though eh? I can keep this up all day. I suppose I am also confused as to what your definition of meaningful content is. Is this meaningful? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6865612 How about this? I guess comments meant purely to attack another member is meaningful content: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6842750 Seems like you have a double standard h…

> Seems like you have a double standard here. (...) You should at least be consistent if you're going to call other people out. Ad hominem tu quoque [1]. Suppose I'm 70 years old with emphysema due to smoking cigarettes decades ago. If I advise you "smoking is harmful, don't do it", does my hypocrisy invalidate the assertion that smoking is harmful? Would the fact that I, as an addict, still smoke a pack a day magica…

    Ad hominem tu quoque [1]. Suppose I'm 70 years old with emphysema due to smoking cigarettes decades ago. If I advise you "smoking is harmful, don't do it", does my hypocrisy invalidate the assertion that smoking is harmful?

Thanks, but trotting out logical fallacies doesn't make you look smart and I already know that hypocrisy is not mutually exclusive with being correct. The point is that the parent seemed oh so saddened by the lack of constructive discourse here, yet he has at least two similar comments. So yes, ad hominem, that was the point.

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

#164

Post by indigent » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 12:52 AM UTC

I feel slightly validated for leaving academia after reading this article. When I was in grad school I was working with an adviser who was in the final phase of applying for tenure. She was under immense pressure to publish, and she totally passed all that pressure on to me and her other grad student at the time. It was the worst two years of my life. Ultimately we both left her charge, and she was denied tenure.

The "publish or perish" atmosphere at most institutions is toxic. I remember running some in-vivo experiments using our system and looking for data that validated our hypothesis, but when I found none I was ordered to "find anything" and rewrite the hypothesis to match it. This was so that we had something positive to submit to journals, regardless of what it was. The papers were utter trash, and I was ashamed to put my name on them. The absolute focus on publishing ends up creating what is essentially "journal spam."

I don't want to say that research is dead, but it's definitely in the doldrums at this point.

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

#165

Post by hacknat » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 12:56 AM UTC

I think the reality is that more and more bright people avoid the Academy these days. I'm not saying I'm particularly bright, but I started out thinking I was going to be an Academic, but when I saw that I would have to deal with the same BS, politics, and hoop jumping that people in business deal with, I went with the option that was the same, but offered more money.

I think that's what the majority of the Academy has become for people now. If two jobs are pretty much equal, except in pay, which one will you take?

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

#166

Post by foobarqux » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 1:14 AM UTC

weland wrote: post #158

moggie wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are those issues?

I was about to write a longer post, but this is so incredulously complicated, and I am so biased, that I changed my mind halfway through. I'm honestly too biased about some of its points to provide anything marginally better than flamebait if I start going into details, but I can offer some hints. 1. The funding for research is increasingly scarce, and the ones who decide how big they are and to whom they should go a…

You seem to, maybe fairly, denigrate startups and industry in general as well as academia.

What should an intelligent person do? What did you settle on? What advice would you give to young people?

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

#167

Post by eli_gottlieb » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 1:17 AM UTC

weland wrote: post #158

moggie wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are those issues?

I was about to write a longer post, but this is so incredulously complicated, and I am so biased, that I changed my mind halfway through. I'm honestly too biased about some of its points to provide anything marginally better than flamebait if I start going into details, but I can offer some hints. 1. The funding for research is increasingly scarce, and the ones who decide how big they are and to whom they should go a…

Oh God. You just described my life last year.

I'm taking a bunch less coursework this semester, and then I find out I need 30 points coursework to finish my MSc instead of 18. I would have been done with 18 this semester. I have to publish a thesis either way; it's a matter of whether they accept a non-Technion four-year-degree as a four-year degree or a three-year degree. I hate these anal, bureaucratic requirements; I just want to concentrate on research and in-depth issues rather than continually taking courses!

I just want to add one more issue:

4) In both teaching/coursework and research, academia is extremely detail-obsessed, constantly burrowing away from larger, important questions towards small, easily-answerable ones. For a good example, look at how many different kinds of differential equations the average engineering major at a really good university is required to learn to solve, and then check how often they actually solve those equations in either original research or in their jobs. Sometimes, yes, they do, but enough to justify having two or three distinct courses in just differential equations versus, say, a single full course in fundamental statistics? Oh, but there are a thousand different approaches to statistics!

The result is a system that, seen from the outside, appears to be trying to actively avoid tackling truly major scientific problems. Sure, it can give you a seminar on the latest approach to convex optimization problems or pure subtyping theories, but ask us what problems these solve and we academics will look at you sort of blankly.

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

#168

Post by mikeash » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 1:24 AM UTC

fargolime wrote: post #70

mikeash wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've seen many people say that, but none who proved it scientifically. After all, it simply uses generally accepted equations to make its point. As the author suggests, I've plugged the equations into Excel to get the same charts. My favorite part is this: - The Relativistic Rocket site reports that a rocket accelerating / decelerating at 1 Earth gravity can travel from Earth to the Andromeda galaxy, 2 million light…

Since 1 million light years in 14 years is way faster than the speed of light, and relativity doesn't allow you to exceed the speed of light by acceleration, clearly this is something other than regular old F=ma "acceleration".

Additionally, the fact that we don't see things 14 light years away accelerating to a million light years away very quickly, despite being under a constant 1 gee acceleration, would seem to indicate that this is not what actually happens.

Putting numbers into equations and getting other numbers out doesn't mean anything by itself. I can use the standard d = 1/2at^2 equation to "demonstrate" that combining one apple and three tangerines produces 4.5 dandelions, and you would get the same result putting those numbers into the equation, but it doesn't mean the exercise makes any sense.

I will be honest: I don't understand enough about physics to point out exactly what is wrong with the proposed theory. But I understand enough to realize that it is very wrong, and point out some obvious flaws.

Finally, since the equations are well understood, if this really does explain "dark energy" then it should be possible to put in real-world numbers for things like the gravitational field of the Earth and get numbers out for the accelerating expansion of the universe which match real-world observations? Has the author actually done this and compared the results with observations? I can see no indication of this, even though it should be an easy exercise. This is another major indication that this is all nonsense, if it is in fact the case that this analysis has not been done.

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

#169

Post by rpedela » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 1:56 AM UTC

weland wrote: post #158

moggie wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are those issues?

I was about to write a longer post, but this is so incredulously complicated, and I am so biased, that I changed my mind halfway through. I'm honestly too biased about some of its points to provide anything marginally better than flamebait if I start going into details, but I can offer some hints. 1. The funding for research is increasingly scarce, and the ones who decide how big they are and to whom they should go a…

For #3, I am starting to think we should split off a portion of computer science and call it software engineering. People who are interested in the theory of algorithms, etc can do computer science. Those that want to learn how to build fault-tolerant, scalable systems can do that in software engineering. It is similar to how chemistry and chemical engineering are split.

Of course you still need to get a basic understanding of how computers work with a software engineering degree, but knowing how to mathematical prove some algorithm is O(log n) is pretty pointless for most (not all) jobs in industry.

One of the things that is not taught well across the board in computer science programs is how to actually write code that is readable and maintainable and how to work with a team using source control, bug trackers, etc. Just to be clear, I am sure there are programs that do this well, but based on my experience they are not the norm.

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

#170

Post by pbhjpbhj » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 2:52 AM UTC

AimHere wrote: post #13

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.

He was a professor of physics at Edinburgh University, and he certainly showed up on the campus there. I saw him around, but I don't recall witnessing him doing any work since I didn't study much physics. I'm guessing what he did was teach classes and supervise graduate students, put out the occasional paper now and again, just like any other professor. Also, his name would allow Edinburgh University to say 'We have…

>I'm sure he was pretty good value for money just for his name alone... //

That may be true but it's such a sad indictment of how science funding works if it is true that I sincerely hope it isn't.

A professor of physics's value is in research and teaching, it's their capacities and abilities that make them valuable as physicists.

Who let the marketeers take over management of scientific progress??