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

#181

Post by weland » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 2:56 PM UTC

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #167

weland wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> In both teaching/coursework and research, academia is extremely detail-obsessed, constantly burrowing away from larger, important questions towards small, easily-answerable ones.

In the research circles, this is simply because smaller, easily-answerable questions are the ones that fit the short-term grant applications. It's very unfortunate, indeed.

In the teaching circles, there is a slightly related case, which manifests through this:

> 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.

This is because the mathematics courses need to reach a compromise between teaching enough fundamentals to be meaningful as math courses, and enough "practical" applications to warrant their presence in an engineering curricula.

I was also annoyed by taking math courses for three. Fucking. Semesters. But looking back to it, while I have forgotten much of the actual details they taught me, the type of reasoning they taught me stuck with me, and it's ok. I'm not sure if there's a better way to teach that.

> Oh God. You just described my life last year.

I hope it gets better. Cheers!

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

#182

Post by privong » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 3:17 PM UTC

jckt wrote: post #72

privong wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... and for the promise of continued production.

Yes but you don't necessarily lose tenure if you don't publish, no? So realistically the promise isn't that important if you don't really suffer from failing to keep it.

Promise as in showing the potential for future research, not for your promising to do future research.

But yes, it is a gamble, that often fails. But people aren't given tenture just because of what they've done in the past. Yes, it relies on what they've done in the past, but the intent is that past behavior is a predictor of future behavior.

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

#183

Post by mietek » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 3:33 PM 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...

I completely agree with the expressed sentiments, both regarding TBBT and Community, which is a fantastic show.

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

#184

Post by rpedela » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 5:02 PM UTC

weland wrote: post #178

rpedela wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 unders…

> 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. I agree, but IMHO most jobs in the industry that don't require you to prove that an algorithm is O(log n) shouldn't need a degree at all . In the area of the world where I live, if you…

No, you need a degree for most CS jobs. CS is too complicated. You need to know how the computer works on a theoretical level which requires a degree.

The CS equivalent to an electrician would be people who do basic IT support (i.e. tell someone to reboot their Windows machine) and easy programming like creating a blog.

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

#185

Post by Double_Cast » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 6:22 PM UTC

EpicEng wrote: post #163

Double_Cast wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 sad…

> I already know that hypocrisy is not mutually exclusive with being correct

Then you already know that TheZenPsycho's hypocrisy was irrelevant? Not merely "not mutually exclusive with being correct", but basically a non-sequiter. So tell me, why bother bringing it up? At this point, I really am curious what you were thinking.

> trotting out logical fallacies doesn't make you look smart

But fallacies are useful for stating my position succinctly and accurately. If you're familiar, then the chance you'll misunderstand me is negligible. If you're unfamiliar, then the chance you'll misunderstand me (upon reading wikipedia and my example) is at least reduced. The alternative is to concoct an explanation which leads us to speak past each other. I give you Example A:

> 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.

No, that's not your point. That's one of your supporting arguments. Your actual point is "Therefore, TheZenPsycho should not have criticized me." I agree, fallacies don't make me look any smarter. But I imagine they avoid making me look as dumb as someone who can't defend their own position properly.

Furthermore, my comment was a Refutation of the Central Point. As a fellow HN user, surely you recognize this from How to Disagree [1]. Your point was predicated solely upon double standards (and vitriol?). And then I stated not only that double standards are noise, but also why I actually disagree with you by referencing HN's guidelines.

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

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

#186

Post by EpicEng » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 7:52 PM UTC

Double_Cast wrote: post #185

EpicEng wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sad…

> I already know that hypocrisy is not mutually exclusive with being correct Then you already know that TheZenPsycho's hypocrisy was irrelevant? Not merely "not mutually exclusive with being correct", but basically a non-sequiter. So tell me, why bother bringing it up? At this point, I really am curious what you were thinking. > trotting out logical fallacies doesn't make you look smart But fallacies are useful for s…

    No, that's not your point. That's one of your supporting arguments. Your actual point is "Therefore, TheZenPsycho should not have criticized me."

No, that's not my point. My point is dealing with humorless gits like you and Zen is just wearisome. I should be "ashamed" fro replying to a comment to say that I like a TV show? Yeesh, get over yourselves.

Seriously, it's just exhausting talking to people like you. I'm sure both of you are a blast to be around in real life (that was sarcasm in case it was lost on you).

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

#187

Post by fargolime » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 8:04 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #168

fargolime wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in…

> 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".

As the blog notes, the speed of light limit in relativity theory applies only to observers in free fall or observers measuring things passing right by them. The rocket's crew isn't in free fall and the thing they're measuring is distant.

> 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.

That's because our 1g field drops off quickly with distance. The rocket's crew has a uniform 1g field all the way to the beacon.

> 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.

That's because you're using the equation illogically, by mixing labels. The blog uses the equations properly.

> But I understand enough to realize that it is very wrong, and point out some obvious flaws.

OK, I've been a student of the blog for years and can likely always show the flaw in your arguments.

> I can see no indication of this, even though it should be an easy exercise.

It wouldn't be easy. As the blog notes, it's not just the Earth's gravitational field, it's also the Milky Way's and more. When observing supernovae in distant galaxies we're talking about a much larger g-field than the Earth's.

> This is another major indication that this is all nonsense, if it is in fact the case that this analysis has not been done.

That's unscientific as hell, like saying Newton's Principia is crap because he didn't include a calculation that used his equations to weigh the Earth (which Cavendish "easily" did much later).

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

#188

Post by weland » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 8:08 PM UTC

rpedela wrote: post #184

weland wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I agree, but IMHO most jobs in the industry that don't require you to prove that an algorithm is O(log n) shouldn't need a degree at all . In the area of the world where I live, if you…

No, you need a degree for most CS jobs. CS is too complicated. You need to know how the computer works on a theoretical level which requires a degree. The CS equivalent to an electrician would be people who do basic IT support (i.e. tell someone to reboot their Windows machine) and easy programming like creating a blog.

Do you? Half of my colleagues who do web development would be utterly unable to tell you what TLB or virtual memory are, probably don't remember Ohm's law, and while they would probably be able to write a sorting function on their own, chances are they'd fail even the most basic exam on data structures and algorithm.

And they can do their job just fine. This isn't 1995, when writing dynamic websites was a pioneer's job. What they do is enough of a commodity that it can be outsourced to college freshmen at the end of the world. People don't need a degree to do that now, just like they didn't need one back then, only for different reasons.

Also, no, doing electrician's work is far more complex than IT support. For one thing, the chances of dying because of doing it improperly are quite disproportionate, and the amount of theoretical knowledge you need in order to be an electrician is not negligible at all. Your average hipster who's proud of the amazingly cool things he's hacking on his Arduino knows a lot less about it than your average electrician, even if the electrician isn't so obnoxious about it.

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

#189

Post by mikeash » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 8:37 PM UTC

fargolime wrote: post #187

mikeash wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in…

> 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". As the blog notes, the speed of light limit in relativity theory applies only to observers in free fall or observers measuring things passing right by them. The rocket's crew isn't in free f…

"It wouldn't be easy."

Nonsense. The mass of galaxies is reasonably well known. Put the numbers in and see how well they match reality. The numbers are uncertain? Then put on appropriate error bars and see if reality falls within them.

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

#190

Post by Double_Cast » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 10:53 PM UTC

EpicEng wrote: post #186

Double_Cast wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I already know that hypocrisy is not mutually exclusive with being correct Then you already know that TheZenPsycho's hypocrisy was irrelevant? Not merely "not mutually exclusive with being correct", but basically a non-sequiter. So tell me, why bother bringing it up? At this point, I really am curious what you were thinking. > trotting out logical fallacies doesn't make you look smart But fallacies are useful for s…

No, that's not your point. That's one of your supporting arguments. Your actual point is "Therefore, TheZenPsycho should not have criticized me." No, that's not my point. My point is dealing with humorless gits like you and Zen is just wearisome. I should be "ashamed" fro replying to a comment to say that I like a TV show? Yeesh, get over yourselves. Seriously, it's just exhausting talking to people like you. I'm sur…

Taking your point at face value invites more problems than the point I originally inferred. For example:

> dealing with you and Zen is just wearisome.

Maybe your judgement indicates more about you than us? Perhaps you feel that dealing with us is wearisome? It's not as if I have an html tag floating next to me that says . It's like that joke about how Bob says "all my ex's are crazy", yet the most obvious common thread in Bob's failed relationships is Bob himself. Or like when a rookie whines, and the members say "If you can't take the heat, get out of the street."

But given your point (verbatim: "dealing with humorless gits like you and Zen is just wearisome.") was to insult others (rather than offer constructive criticism, even if it's "get over yourself"), I can't think of any reason why you would reply to Zen to begin with other than to satisfy your own ego. I mean, really, what else in the world did you expect to have changed via insult?

> I'm sure both of you are a blast to be around in real life

Sarcasm duly noted. But I admit, I'm having issues with the scope of this discussion (see what I did there? ',:D ). First, we're playing by the rules of the internet. Next, we're playing by the rules of real life. I've noticed a pattern. Rather reify to HN, you abstract away from HN. What's next, the rules of the cosmos? The 11 commandments decried by the flying spaghetti monster himself?

I think you're in denial of where we are. Like, have you ever even skimmed the guidelines? Do you say "You must be a blast in real life" when people sush you in a library? Do you derive satisfaction from rickrolling facebook, and comment "we're on the web. street rulez"? On one hand, it probably really is no big deal. But on the other hand, the librarian is probably justified in moderating the library.