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

Serious Science

serious-science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–28 of 28 posts

Re: Serious Science

#21

Post by tokipin »

jasallen wrote: post #12
kghose wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what science is. Stuff said by scientists, often referring to other stuff said by other scientists before.

I can't think you really believe that to be true. Your description says you are a neuro-scientist. So science is just something you say? If you say it, it is true? Or do you usually try to provide supporting documentation? Show statistical evidence and provide the parameters under which such figures were gathered? Encourage others to reproduce such results rather than merely relying on 'stuff you said'? In this age r…

i think you're jumping the gun. he means that science is vetted by consensus. and this particular website has a casual tone and the videos look like layman explanations for people who aren't afraid of getting a teeny bit technical.

though, i would agree that citations wouldn't hurt if particular claims are being made, but a lot of the videos look like overviews of generic knowledge

Re: Serious Science

#22

Post by tokipin »

ivarrr wrote: post #16
toufka wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is a serious question here . On the other hand, I think it's an intriguing question in general. There is nearly no way for a PI (head scientist) to cite everything that they say. Knowledge at the forefront is cobbled together from little whispers, tastes of failed experiments, hearings-ons from colleagues, intuition, guesses and literally decades of thinking. And so when speaking abstractly (as the…

>it'd be a great resource if they listed to the side a paper or review about some of the stuff they just spoke of. Great idea! We'll put it unto the to-do list.

something easier to fix in the short term is your logo, which was saved as a lossy JPG. the artifacts are subtly visible and it looks ugly. or it might be an antialiasing issue. part of it might also be the border/thinness but thats another discussion. if you have the source as a vector and saving to PNG doesn't improve it, try saving it as a very large bitmap and resizing it down.

Re: Serious Science

#23

Post by judk »

ivarrr wrote: post #13
jasallen wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't think you really believe that to be true. Your description says you are a neuro-scientist. So science is just something you say? If you say it, it is true? Or do you usually try to provide supporting documentation? Show statistical evidence and provide the parameters under which such figures were gathered? Encourage others to reproduce such results rather than merely relying on 'stuff you said'? In this age r…

Dangerous viewpoint is when science is provided by anonymous wikipedia, but not by scientists themselves.

It's how we avoid cult of personality and the fallacy of argument from authority.

Re: Serious Science

#24

Post by ivarrr »

possibilistic wrote: post #20

My roommate and I are working on a very similar video series. We have a differet angle (short breadth survey => depth on a novel or interesting discovery or inquiry; informed by paper review, but no PIs.) I'll watch how you guys evolve closely. Good job.

thanx!

Re: Serious Science

#25

Post by ivarrr »

patrickyeon wrote: post #19
hengheng wrote: post #7

I kinda want this as a Podcast. Or do you monetize exclusively via YouTube? PS: Also the "subscribe" page can, for now, just link to the youtube channel. At least I could subscribe there.

So do I, and I wonder if there's a more reasonable way to monetize this than youtube (assuming it's meant to make money). I'd much rather sign up for an RSS podcast than set up a cronjob to download the video and rip the audio (which would also mean no money from youtube for them).

No, we do not expect to monetize it this way. We will open mp3-podcast later.

Re: Serious Science

#27

Post by kghose »

tokipin wrote: post #21
jasallen wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't think you really believe that to be true. Your description says you are a neuro-scientist. So science is just something you say? If you say it, it is true? Or do you usually try to provide supporting documentation? Show statistical evidence and provide the parameters under which such figures were gathered? Encourage others to reproduce such results rather than merely relying on 'stuff you said'? In this age r…

i think you're jumping the gun. he means that science is vetted by consensus. and this particular website has a casual tone and the videos look like layman explanations for people who aren't afraid of getting a teeny bit technical. though, i would agree that citations wouldn't hurt if particular claims are being made, but a lot of the videos look like overviews of generic knowledge

Lectures often don't have citations. It breaks up the flow. Basic text books often don't have citations. Citations by themselves are also meaningless.

The ideal of science that we are taught boils down to one premise and one premise only: as part of a scientific statement there will be a recipe. By following this recipe we can replicate the findings of the author.

This ideal is met less and less the more complex and expensive our science gets.

(Thanks for the support and clarification btw!)

Post reply on HN