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

What Happened When We Tried to Publish a Real Paper Investigating Time Travel

thewinnower.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–195 of 195 posts

Re: What Happened When We Tried to Publish a Real Paper Investigating Time Travel

#191

Post by andreasvc »

facepalm wrote: post #190
andreasvc wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is there to explain? They found nothing, which does not necessarily explain anything.

I mean how would you explain it if they would find something? I guess this is another Bayesian vs classical statistics thing. In Bayesian thinking, absence of evidence is evidence (not proof, mind you, but it is information).

Sure, it's information. Thing is you have no idea how informative it is, because then you would have to know how likely it would have been that some time traveler would make one of the two particular search queries they tested. Since we know absolutely nothing about time travelers, I think the information content is negligible.

Re: What Happened When We Tried to Publish a Real Paper Investigating Time Travel

#192

Post by aman_abhishk »

Essentially, it must be noted that physics and any kind of science is driven by concrete data and mathematical analysis. This work is speculative, in very speculative at that. What he wrote is not a "paper", its probably an interesting article.

Re: What Happened When We Tried to Publish a Real Paper Investigating Time Travel

#193

Post by araes »

nmrm wrote: post #158
araes wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is and it isn't (why I included if possible). As counterpoints I would say that: - A lot of papers end up in a lot of different official journals in some form. Publishing slightly varied versions of the same work across 3-4 different journals is a time honoured tradition. - Actual journals do effectively the same thing that arXiv does, but theoretically with more 'experts' and rigour. - arXiv provides peer review,…

Thanks for replying. these are all interesting points, and I'm intrigued by your prediction. If things work out that way I would be quite happy; pay walls in front of science suck! > - A lot of papers end up in a lot of different official journals in some form. Publishing slightly varied versions of the same work across 3-4 different journals is a time honoured tradition. Hm. Typically in CS these happens a different…

Both thank you for the reasoned comments, and you're welcome. Also, I cede the "theoretical" point, as that was mostly me being snarky.

I agree that publishing the 'exact' same results is a no go, and that will usually get you a demerit (it's just too easy to discover these days). However, I would argue that the level of detail/justification that people change can vary dramatically. Some people are on the honest end of the scale, like you say, and change each version significantly. In fact, to step away from hyperbole, I would say that probably most trend that way.

However, I feel like the current system also incentivizes dishonesty, particularly with how brutal the associate professor and tenure tracks have gotten for many fields. For example, while CS is a relatively nice field, since its both new, and the job market for its PhDs is hot, others like Physics, Math, most liberal arts, ect... are awful, with 10:1 ratios in some cases between candidates and positions. In those, you'd better be perceived as a rockstar, or you're going to be flipping burgers. And the natural way to be seen as a rockstar? Publish. A lot.

Actually, now that I think about it, that would probably make a good sociology paper. Possible correlations of plagiarism, minor-edit multi-submissions, yatta... to the level of competition for professor spots.

Re: What Happened When We Tried to Publish a Real Paper Investigating Time Travel

#194

Post by violinner »

arethuza wrote: post #20
jerf wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on which model exactly time travel works on. Really, this is good science; it has a low probability of working, but the cost is very low too (literally a hobby-time expenditure), it asks a lot of interesting questions, and has a reasonable method for finding answers. It could also shine light on the question of how time travel works, if it does. Science should include a healthy portfolio of such experiment…

What makes you think that ITER has a low probability of success? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

Iter is cheap. Its level of funding is many magnitudes lower than the level of funding for other hopeless causes, for instance, arming the US citizenry to the teeth including primary school teachers, giving tax relief to political organizations that are churches, the war on drugs, the war on terrorists. That is a fact of life. The rewards of break even for Iter are a step in the direction of a more stable environment, sustainable energy production, and better public health. It is worth it as was the failure of gasahol, if it keeps keeps the further goal in the public mind.

Re: What Happened When We Tried to Publish a Real Paper Investigating Time Travel

#195

Post by jebus989 »

triplenineteen wrote: post #163
jebus989 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just googled but couldn't hit it (+at work) but I remember an instance of someone editing Wikipedia claiming some known person had been found dead a day or so before it happened. Police investigated and found it was just a freak coincidence — just some guy vandalising the page. Kind of "a million monkeys" in practice: given there's loads of nonsense additions, at some point over a few years they will accurately pre…

I think you are referring to this: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Death_of_Nancy_Benoit_rumour_pos...

Just saw this but yes that's it! Many thanks
Post reply on HN