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

Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

quillette.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 248 posts

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#121

Post by quotemstr »

mirimir wrote: post #72
quotemstr wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, reduce emissions and more seriously consider geoengineering. A lot of otherwise-reasonable climate researchers seem to have an unduly negative view of potential direct interventions in the climate.

We may well be forced into geoengineering. Because, by the time enough people/firms/governments are sufficiently motivated, it'll be too late for anything else. Except adapting, I mean. But anyway, CO2 capture is the obviously safest bet. Adding shitloads of iron to the oceans, or injecting shitloads of SOx into the stratosphere, are just a little too likely to have serious downsides. Or putting screens at L1, for th…

I like the L1 screen idea. It's quickly reversible, after all. Besides, in the long run, if we're going to because a Kardashev type I civilization, we're going to need some kind of planetary energy management. Why not start now?

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#122

Post by leiroigh »

Skim the preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04184 , especially section 7.

The article is not fit for publication in a mathematical journal, it is cosplaying as math.

To cite:

> The following simple proposition may be well known, but since no reference is known to the author, a proof is included for completeness.

>Proposition 7.1. N(µ, σ1) is more variable than N(µ, σ2) if and only if σ1 > σ2.

>Proof: [lots of lines]

In a real mathematical paper, this claim would not be glorified into a numbered proposition, and it would not merit a proof; this amount of mathematical work is the distance between one line and the next. I would not even expect students to provide a proof for such utter trivialities in a homework assignment.

Author should have submitted to PNAS instead, or written a blogpost.

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#123

Post by semi-extrinsic »

metaphor wrote: post #101
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What we need to distinguish here is what exactly we're talking about being "settled science". Is "human CO2 emissions are causing an increased greenhouse effect and ocean acidification" settled science? Yes. Is "how much will that affect us and the planet at different time scales" settled science? Not completely, no. The climate system is incredibly hard to model. What scientists are doing in the latter regard is mak…

> ...we should work as hard as possible to reduce emissions. Which, incidentally, nobody is actually doing. You may wish to reassess your remark for accuracy after actually taking the time to digest the Clean Air Act codified in 42 U.S.C. Ch 85[1]. [1] https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2016-title42/html/USCOD...

Did you search through that document for "carbon dioxide"? Because it only appears in 10 places, and in none of those does it define any limits or reductions.

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#124

Post by charmides »

marchenko wrote: post #104
maxnoe wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, reality is under no obligation to care about your feelings. I don't like the idea men live shorter than woman, but that's reality. Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. And nobody here said that women are less capable than men. The hypothesis was, that the distribution for some traits for men has more kurtosis, so while the mean is similar, there are more outli…

I'm agnostic about the GMV hypothesis, but I will note that is generally taken very seriously in behavioral genetics. Interestingly, the example of the significant female advantage in life expectancy is a relatively recent phenomenon thought to be significantly influenced at present (at the population level) to differences in smoking rates. Pregnancy and childbirth morbidity and mortality used to neutralize the diffe…

The difference in life expectancy between men and women appears to be significant across every human culture. The effect appears to be biological and not cultural.

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#125

Post by [deleted] »

mirimir wrote: post #57
opwieurposiu wrote: post #27

Amie Wilkinson has managed to do many times more harm to the image of women in science then this paper ever could.

Well, that's going too far, I think. She comes off as extremely unprofessional, but there are lots of unprofessional men, as well.

[deleted]

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#126

Post by aunasdfuyb »

AlexCoventry wrote: post #77
barry-cotter wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of that can be true and Amie Wilkinson's campaign of harassment would still be vile and disgusting behaviour, unworthy of an adult of any kind. She got the paper withdrawn from two different journals, and got Dr Tabachnikov to withdraw his name from the paper. What do you think of Dr Wilkinson's behaviour? Because that’s what the article is about, a campaign of harassment from a woman in a position of power.

> What do you think of Dr Wilkinson's behaviour? I'd need a more authoritative account of it to form a view.

And what authoritative accounts have you used to dismiss the paper and the journal editor?

If you believe the editor when they say "I am happy to stir up controversy" why not also believe them when they say "we could make a real contribution here"?

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#127

Post by quilletteThrow »

leiroigh wrote: post #122

Skim the preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04184 , especially section 7. The article is not fit for publication in a mathematical journal, it is cosplaying as math. To cite: > The following simple proposition may be well known, but since no reference is known to the author, a proof is included for completeness. >Proposition 7.1. N(µ, σ1) is more variable than N(µ, σ2) if and only if σ1 > σ2. >Proof: [lots of lines]…

There are different notions of variability used in the paper, and he is showing one is equivalent to the other. It doesn't seem ridiculous to me to include the proof, even though it is simple. Lots of simple proofs are included in papers and books.

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#128

Post by alexandercrohde »

leiroigh wrote: post #122

Skim the preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04184 , especially section 7. The article is not fit for publication in a mathematical journal, it is cosplaying as math. To cite: > The following simple proposition may be well known, but since no reference is known to the author, a proof is included for completeness. >Proposition 7.1. N(µ, σ1) is more variable than N(µ, σ2) if and only if σ1 > σ2. >Proof: [lots of lines]…

Can we separate the discussion of whether this paper has a superfluous proof in it from whether its conclusion is true?

Additionally, the main point of the article is that that Mr. Hill feels his paper was pushed out of publication because of a political agenda. Let's also acknowledge the claim of political motivations corrupting academics is independent of the "superfluous proof" claim.

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#129

Post by quilletteThrow »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #128
leiroigh wrote: post #122

Skim the preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04184 , especially section 7. The article is not fit for publication in a mathematical journal, it is cosplaying as math. To cite: > The following simple proposition may be well known, but since no reference is known to the author, a proof is included for completeness. >Proposition 7.1. N(µ, σ1) is more variable than N(µ, σ2) if and only if σ1 > σ2. >Proof: [lots of lines]…

Can we separate the discussion of whether this paper has a superfluous proof in it from whether its conclusion is true? Additionally, the main point of the article is that that Mr. Hill feels his paper was pushed out of publication because of a political agenda. Let's also acknowledge the claim of political motivations corrupting academics is independent of the "superfluous proof" claim.

The paper doesn't have a conclusion, really. It describes a model and is supposedly intended to spur greater discussion. This is probably part of the reason the paper is written as it is: meant to be simple and easily accessible to people in other fields. The parent will need to work harder to dismiss the author...

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#130

Post by tbrownaw »

leiroigh wrote: post #122

Skim the preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04184 , especially section 7. The article is not fit for publication in a mathematical journal, it is cosplaying as math. To cite: > The following simple proposition may be well known, but since no reference is known to the author, a proof is included for completeness. >Proposition 7.1. N(µ, σ1) is more variable than N(µ, σ2) if and only if σ1 > σ2. >Proof: [lots of lines]…

The article is not fit for publication in a mathematical journal

And yet actual real some mathematical journal editors apparently thought otherwise before they got pushed into a purely political retraction.

Post reply on HN