The Scientific Paper is Obsolete (2018) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Scientific Paper is Obsolete (2018)

#171

Post by someguydave » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 5:31 PM UTC

jrichardshaw wrote: post #128

someguydave wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess we should stop trying because datasets are big

The GP is making a completely legitimate point here that broad sharing of large raw datasets is pretty hard, but I don't think anyone is arguing we should give up. Here's a few thoughts, though they're more directed at the general thread than the parent. In my case I'm currently finishing up a paper where the raw data it's derived from comes to 1.5 PB. It is not impossible to share that, but it costs time and money (…

why not purchase a sufficient number of tapes or drives to capture the data and deposit it at the university library?

certainly sharing apparatus is hard but you could release the schematics, board designs and BOMs of the electronics involved.

The problem now is that 1) very few even try to reproduce 2) very little money is available for reproduction

fixing those incentives would help alot.

Re: The Scientific Paper is Obsolete (2018)

#172

Post by AOsborn » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 1:27 AM UTC

BeetleB wrote: post #83

AOsborn wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: if the experiment can't be reproduced to be verified, how does the paper provide more proof than a blanket 'trust me'? From someone who isn't an academic, isn't this letting politics come before science?

> if the experiment can't be reproduced to be verified, how does the paper provide more proof than a blanket 'trust me'? It doesn't, and it is a big "trust me". People review papers based on the merits of the idea and methodology, and then tend to trust the results. Of course, if the results are very "significant" (e.g. cold fusion), then it will be scrutinized more, people will fail to reproduce, and they will haras…

Thanks, interesting to consider.

Re: The Scientific Paper is Obsolete (2018)

#173

Post by agucova » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 6:54 PM UTC

janeroe wrote: post #117

agucova wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Similar things can be said about the textbook and the lecture If you haven't yet, maybe look at Andy Matuschak's "Why books donʼt work" [1] and " How can we develop transformative tools for thought?" [2] which connect these same ideas to education in general. [1] https://andymatuschak.org/books/ [2] https://numinous.productions/ttft/

> Why books donʼt work They do. First, just like with everything else there are brilliant, good, mediocre, and outright poorly written books. Among those some may work for you, others miss the mark completely depending on your prior experience and background (as the author rightly notices, books are just a medium). Second, did the author expect to become a domain expert after finishing a single book? Clearly, his exp…

I'm uncertain if you read the entire article, but the point is that even the greatest non-fiction books aren't optimal when the objective is learning.

His expectations aren't unrealistic, the methods he's suggesting have decades of research suggesting to learning that's much more efficient than traditional reading.

Re: The Scientific Paper is Obsolete (2018)

#174

Post by janeroe » Tue, Dec 21, 2021, 6:03 AM UTC

agucova wrote: post #173

janeroe wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why books donʼt work They do. First, just like with everything else there are brilliant, good, mediocre, and outright poorly written books. Among those some may work for you, others miss the mark completely depending on your prior experience and background (as the author rightly notices, books are just a medium). Second, did the author expect to become a domain expert after finishing a single book? Clearly, his exp…

I'm uncertain if you read the entire article, but the point is that even the greatest non-fiction books aren't optimal when the objective is learning. His expectations aren't unrealistic, the methods he's suggesting have decades of research suggesting to learning that's much more efficient than traditional reading.

> even the greatest non-fiction books aren't optimal when the objective is learning

Says who? I say he's doing it wrong.

> the methods he's suggesting have decades of research suggesting to learning that's much more efficient than traditional reading

Where are the results of that research then, the culmination in the form of medium superior to books? His mneumonic quantum book doesn't look like one. People need understanding, not memorization.

Re: The Scientific Paper is Obsolete (2018)

#175

Post by JBorrow » Tue, Dec 21, 2021, 3:21 PM UTC

chongli wrote: post #87

JBorrow wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t really work like that. For instance, imagine you have a simulation with billions of particles in it. To construct reduced data you may need to use many fields (position, temperature, composition) of all particles over many outputs (usually at different times).

In that case you shouldn’t need to ship the data at all. Just include the code for the simulation and let the rescuers run it to generate the data themselves.

Sorry I'm a bit late to this, but those simulations take 10s - 100s of millions of Cpu hours (i.e. costs of millions - 10s of millions of dollars), so that's not practical.