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

“Is there a heuristic we might use to identify and flag questionable papers?”

statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–109 of 109 posts

Re: “Is there a heuristic we might use to identify and flag questionable papers?”

#101

Post by closedloop129 »

pyinstallwoes wrote: post #100
closedloop129 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How do you know if your network is the truthful one You don't know. Evolution will decide if your seed group was good enough. >how do you guarantee it is the person in question? You can't. You have to role back if an identity is compromised >It must run on culture and physical reality itself. Yes. That's the difference between science and writing in general. Science is meant to be checked with reality. > think the k…

Largely agree with your adds. However one point you mention I've had great contemplation over: > Yes. That's the difference between science and writing in general. Science is meant to be checked with reality. When we live in a world that is increasingly using simulations for verification instead of reality itself, it seems as it becomes an ever increasing attack surface for controlling and manipulating what reality a…

>what to do about simulations and models posing for reality?

It is or will become indistinguishable from thinking. We can ask the same question about our thoughts.

The science trick is that it requires models that can be falsified in reality. If you make predictions about simulations, then you don't make science but math.

The problem about simulations is that they make verification equally or more expensive than the simulation itself. It's the end of 'scientific cooperation'. Why verify a simulation when you can make your own?

>>It all depends on what the participants want to know. >Can you expand on this?

I wouldn't call it poignant, but here you are: As you wrote "Very often, it is real information indeed that is most able to misdirect attention." - there is a process that makes choices. Truth is a tool to reach the goals of that process. We don't care about the scientific method in itself.

Most people don't need truths to reach their goals because there is kind of a market of facts. Some facts are just known, without scientific backing, and people can just choose to use them.

When there is deception there is also cooperation. The misdirecting information is only there because somebody else wants to achieve something. Maybe it's easier to cooperate with them about their goals than handling the misinformation?

Re: “Is there a heuristic we might use to identify and flag questionable papers?”

#102

Post by killingtime74 »

pfortuny wrote: post #71
SMAAART wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in some countries there are monetary incentives associated with publishing in the top journals. Meaning the authors get paid the more they publish? How? Per paper or career advancements-->> higher salary?

This is for example an incentive for tenured professors in Spain to do research: if you get (Maths here) 5 JCR papers in 6 years of which (this is one of the criteria, there are more) three are in the top tercile, then you get a bonus of 120€/month from that point on (this can be obtained only every 6 years). That has been a good incentive to date (I insist, this is maths and there are very few possibilities for chea…

120 euros a month per paper or total? That's only 4 euros a day? That's enough to motivate?

Re: “Is there a heuristic we might use to identify and flag questionable papers?”

#104

Post by pfortuny »

killingtime74 wrote: post #102
pfortuny wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is for example an incentive for tenured professors in Spain to do research: if you get (Maths here) 5 JCR papers in 6 years of which (this is one of the criteria, there are more) three are in the top tercile, then you get a bonus of 120€/month from that point on (this can be obtained only every 6 years). That has been a good incentive to date (I insist, this is maths and there are very few possibilities for chea…

120 euros a month per paper or total? That's only 4 euros a day? That's enough to motivate?

Total, total.

Well, it is a permanent 120Eu per month (usually inflation adjusted, more or less), which considering that the tenured professor salary starts at like 1800Eu per month, is not so bad (at least it is some incentive). You can end up with 5 (or 6, if lucky) of these.

You see: the problem is not the incentive, but the salary itself.

(All the numbers above are more or less with taxes and Social Security already discounted).

Edit: never underestimate the power of saving and compound interest.

Re: “Is there a heuristic we might use to identify and flag questionable papers?”

#105

Post by brutusborn »

GuB-42 wrote: post #85

The most obvious heuristic is to look at the reputation of the journal that publishes it. That's the reason we still have these overpriced journals. The "publishing" part is easy now, it is just a matter of putting a pdf on a server, journals are selling reputation.

Do you think there is a way to get papers reviewed to the same quality without a journal?

If we are paying for reputation and the journals reputation is a function of the reviewers skill, maybe there is a way to cut out the middleman and pay for skillful reviewers instead.

Re: “Is there a heuristic we might use to identify and flag questionable papers?”

#106

Post by pyinstallwoes »

closedloop129 wrote: post #101
pyinstallwoes wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Largely agree with your adds. However one point you mention I've had great contemplation over: > Yes. That's the difference between science and writing in general. Science is meant to be checked with reality. When we live in a world that is increasingly using simulations for verification instead of reality itself, it seems as it becomes an ever increasing attack surface for controlling and manipulating what reality a…

>what to do about simulations and models posing for reality? It is or will become indistinguishable from thinking. We can ask the same question about our thoughts. The science trick is that it requires models that can be falsified in reality. If you make predictions about simulations, then you don't make science but math. The problem about simulations is that they make verification equally or more expensive than the…

To your latter point, yes, and one may not be aware of the fact they are the useful idiot. It may even be degrees useful idiots.

The fundamental issue is that there is a cost to deception that I reason is greater than the benefit to the ones gaining from the cooperation and execution of the competing trajectories of narrative control. It essentially breeds psychic cancer. It incentivized all the behavior that leads to distrust then inevitably chaos.

So the only way to avoid that is no competing factions. How do we transition to a non game theoretic civilization? Can we achieve it without assimilating to silicon?

And related to your points on truth which I agree with, is the classic Greek comparison between Techne and episteme. It translates also to understanding and applying facts demonstrating “actually getting it” vs just regurgitating the fact market. The Tao te Ching has some anecdotes on the danger of knowledge as it leads to people thinking they know something but all they really have is the ability to echo or parrot. I guess you need your messages delivered in a network one way or another.

Thanks for the thoughts. Would enjoy hearing more from you if you’re on a discord or similar.

Re: “Is there a heuristic we might use to identify and flag questionable papers?”

#107

Post by killingtime74 »

pfortuny wrote: post #104
killingtime74 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

120 euros a month per paper or total? That's only 4 euros a day? That's enough to motivate?

Total, total. Well, it is a permanent 120Eu per month (usually inflation adjusted, more or less), which considering that the tenured professor salary starts at like 1800Eu per month, is not so bad (at least it is some incentive). You can end up with 5 (or 6, if lucky) of these. You see: the problem is not the incentive, but the salary itself. (All the numbers above are more or less with taxes and Social Security alre…

Ah if it’s after tax and permanent that’s pretty good

Re: “Is there a heuristic we might use to identify and flag questionable papers?”

#108

Post by closedloop129 »

pyinstallwoes wrote: post #106
closedloop129 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>what to do about simulations and models posing for reality? It is or will become indistinguishable from thinking. We can ask the same question about our thoughts. The science trick is that it requires models that can be falsified in reality. If you make predictions about simulations, then you don't make science but math. The problem about simulations is that they make verification equally or more expensive than the…

To your latter point, yes, and one may not be aware of the fact they are the useful idiot. It may even be degrees useful idiots. The fundamental issue is that there is a cost to deception that I reason is greater than the benefit to the ones gaining from the cooperation and execution of the competing trajectories of narrative control. It essentially breeds psychic cancer. It incentivized all the behavior that leads t…

Thank you.

I am not prepared to continue this outside of hn. How could I reach you later?

Regarding the deception: We also decept ourselves. So even if you go silicon, how do you know that that silicon is without flaws?

Re: “Is there a heuristic we might use to identify and flag questionable papers?”

#109

Post by pyinstallwoes »

closedloop129 wrote: post #108
pyinstallwoes wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To your latter point, yes, and one may not be aware of the fact they are the useful idiot. It may even be degrees useful idiots. The fundamental issue is that there is a cost to deception that I reason is greater than the benefit to the ones gaining from the cooperation and execution of the competing trajectories of narrative control. It essentially breeds psychic cancer. It incentivized all the behavior that leads t…

Thank you. I am not prepared to continue this outside of hn. How could I reach you later? Regarding the deception: We also decept ourselves. So even if you go silicon, how do you know that that silicon is without flaws?

I can be reached at gentle.zone6594@fastmail.com

- precisely re: silicon. One can never be sure about external systems outside the self it seems, and even that is potentially at mercy to whatever can manipulate the senses. However there is an increased risk of deception / corruption by introducing a universal thing that only 0.0001% or so know how it actually works or could build one end to end.

It doesn’t necessarily mean to abandon silicon, but it does mean that it can’t ever be trusted. So designing systems around that and probably minimizing dependence. I can see this happening with “cold computation” that is very specific in purpose and low in cost. Something like the green array chips. But that does have the potential to swarm. All I know is that if silicon replicates it’s going to be in conflict with dna.

It seems prudent for a dna based life form to stick to dna for truth. All else is risk of assimilation or some form of deception at large unable to be detected.

Much more to unpack there though.

Post reply on HN