Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations • Hacker News Board

Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations

#51

Post by wladimir » Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 7:23 AM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #11

Here's another paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7677819 "Tal's Formula is the Trapezoidal Rule" A rebuttal doesn't get much blunter than that.

This does happen a lot in science. Between fields and even within a field, for example a biologist discovers a handy 'new' data structure that is useful for storing DNA samples. Which is simply a basic binary tree. As the reviewers of a biology paper are usually biologists and not computer scientists, they might not notice the obvious.

Similarly, within computer science I've seen cases like this as well. A researcher in scientific visualization built an awesome visualization algorithm based on a 'new' data structure. Then it turned out this data structure was already discovered in the 90's by a theoretical computer scientist.

In neither of my cases it undermined the underlying research, it's basically just a missing reference. It's inherent in science that some things are rediscovered once in a while and it is very hard to follow articles from a completely other field.

However, something as blatant as rediscovering integration reviewers from each field should have noticed....

Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations

#52

Post by whatwhat » Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 7:29 AM UTC

tel wrote: post #50

whatwhat wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I ask you a question? Why is rote memorization frowned upon in math? I'm a second year math student about to enter his third year. I enter a lot of the definitions, theorems, etc. into a flash card software (Anki) for memorization. I combine this with doing tons of proofs and problems from various textbooks depending upon the course I'm studying. I would say from personal experience that rote memorization has def…

Not the intended target, but I'll throw in my two c from doing a lot of applied math. Math readily has two components. The first is a formulaic, formal component that can be readily overcome by rote. The second is the more freeform conceptual understanding that motivates and directs the first. I feel confident that if you ask anyone familiar with advanced math if they understand concept/theorem/tool X, they'll say ye…

Thanks. That's a great response.

Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations

#53

Post by pmorici » Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 7:33 AM UTC

sudont wrote: post #25

noonespecial wrote: post #17

I'd laugh a lot harder when people struggle for days and then reach a half-assed piece of some algorithm that's completely well know if I hadn't been there a dozen times myself. Programmers are especially vulnerable to this. Who hasn't made a 4 page case statement when 3 lines of recursion would have done it, especially when starting out? Then again, I've never named my case statements after myself. No matter how bri…

> 4 page case statement when 3 lines of recursion would have done it I just so happen to be starting out. Do you mean generating cases like "prefix-[i+1]” ?

No, lookup the the "switch" statement, depending on what language you are learning it may not support it directly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switch_statement

Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations

#54

Post by jacobolus » Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 7:34 AM UTC

dmlorenzetti wrote: post #21

The author calls out med students for approaching physics through rote memorization. It reminds me of an experience my older brother and I had with a doctor friend. Our friend, an OB/GYN, mentioned how hard her work is, because "the average baby is born at 3am." We laughed, but then my brother asked, "What does 'average' mean when you have a 24-hour clock? It must mean the modal time or something like that." I contri…

It’s actually quite possible to define quantities like mean and variance on a circular dimension like hours or angles, with definitions analogous to the conventional ones on the reals; it just takes a bit of mathematical cleverness. (The general field is sometimes called “circular statistics”, and for the mean specifically, Wikipedia has an article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_of_circular_quantities)

That the two of you ignored your friend’s point and started talking about mathematics instead could be insulting† and she was may have been quite justifiably annoyed. Interpreting that annoyance as evidence that doctors are uncritical/uncurious/uncreative is pretty narrow-minded, IMO.§

† depending on your existing relationship and usual interactions.

§ obviously I wasn’t there and don’t know your friend, so can’t really judge. YMMV

Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations

#55

Post by pmorici » Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 7:40 AM UTC

carbocation wrote: post #32

mbm wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's intriguing that the author's two-page rebuttal is among her 'selected publications'. http://www.sph.unc.edu/nciph/jane_monaco_1990_1984.html

The two page rebuttal that was written by Jane Monaco is among Jane Monaco's selected publications. (You linked us to Jane Monaco's page, not Mary Tai's.)

Just a guess but they only have three total so selected might mean "all" publications and even then the one you cite only has 2 authors instead of 10 and Jane's name is listed first. It's that something that is important to post graduate students?

Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations

#56

Post by whatwhat » Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 7:40 AM UTC

enneff wrote: post #49

whatwhat wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I ask you a question? Why is rote memorization frowned upon in math? I'm a second year math student about to enter his third year. I enter a lot of the definitions, theorems, etc. into a flash card software (Anki) for memorization. I combine this with doing tons of proofs and problems from various textbooks depending upon the course I'm studying. I would say from personal experience that rote memorization has def…

Everything I remember about maths I remember because I understood the "why" of it. The stuff I learned rote - just to pass the exams - I have long since forgotten. I'm now frustrated that I was expected to learn anything by rote, as it's all lost to the sands of time now. Rote memorization might help you with exams and book problems, but it won't help you develop long-term mathematical problem-solving skills. If you…

I'm not saying that problem solving and understanding aren't important (see Bloom's taxonomy).

I'm saying that you still need memory to justify whatever domain your knowledge is in, and that memory seems to be the bedrock of further knowledge (understanding, creativity, problem solving etc.).

Am I missing something here? Do you not need some element of memory to explain things from first principles, and to have an understanding of something?

edit: I've just realized from reading wtallis' comment that I might be confusing two different forms of knowledge: memory and reasoning, insofar as reasoning can produce further truths. Is that what you are getting at?

Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations

#57

Post by wtallis » Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 7:42 AM UTC

whatwhat wrote: post #41

manicbovine wrote: post #22

As a mathematician, I see this as a sign that my field needs an evangelist.

Can I ask you a question? Why is rote memorization frowned upon in math? I'm a second year math student about to enter his third year. I enter a lot of the definitions, theorems, etc. into a flash card software (Anki) for memorization. I combine this with doing tons of proofs and problems from various textbooks depending upon the course I'm studying. I would say from personal experience that rote memorization has def…

To add to enneff's comment: procedural knowledge is at least as important as the end result of a derivation, and in the long run is more useful.

I had several mathematical classes that weren't actually math classes (eg. statistics and physics) where other students would cram to memorize a page full of formulas, and I wouldn't even know the names of most of them going in to the exams - any formula that I could derive in under three minutes wasn't worth memorizing.

When a major outstanding problem in mathematics is finally resolved, it's surprisingly rare for people to care much about the result. Generally, people have checked enough cases or used other methods to be fairly sure what the answer really is. What gets mathematicians excited is the fact that a new proof brings with it new techniques (because if a problem can be solved using existing techniques, it doesn't withstand attack long enough to become legendary).

Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations

#58

Post by moconnor » Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 7:50 AM UTC

noonespecial wrote: post #17

I'd laugh a lot harder when people struggle for days and then reach a half-assed piece of some algorithm that's completely well know if I hadn't been there a dozen times myself. Programmers are especially vulnerable to this. Who hasn't made a 4 page case statement when 3 lines of recursion would have done it, especially when starting out? Then again, I've never named my case statements after myself. No matter how bri…

> Then again, I've never named my case statements after myself.

I bet you created a half-assed linked-list implementation and prefixed the class name with your initial, though ;)

Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations

#59

Post by whatwhat » Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 7:51 AM UTC

wtallis wrote: post #57

whatwhat wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I ask you a question? Why is rote memorization frowned upon in math? I'm a second year math student about to enter his third year. I enter a lot of the definitions, theorems, etc. into a flash card software (Anki) for memorization. I combine this with doing tons of proofs and problems from various textbooks depending upon the course I'm studying. I would say from personal experience that rote memorization has def…

To add to enneff's comment: procedural knowledge is at least as important as the end result of a derivation, and in the long run is more useful. I had several mathematical classes that weren't actually math classes (eg. statistics and physics) where other students would cram to memorize a page full of formulas, and I wouldn't even know the names of most of them going in to the exams - any formula that I could derive…

Ok, I think I might understand what you are getting at. I seem to be confusing two different forms of knowledge: reasoning and memory (where reasoning can be used to produce other truths).

Re: Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations

#60

Post by bluesnowmonkey » Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 7:56 AM UTC

dmlorenzetti wrote: post #21

The author calls out med students for approaching physics through rote memorization. It reminds me of an experience my older brother and I had with a doctor friend. Our friend, an OB/GYN, mentioned how hard her work is, because "the average baby is born at 3am." We laughed, but then my brother asked, "What does 'average' mean when you have a 24-hour clock? It must mean the modal time or something like that." I contri…

Of course you can average times of day, as well as wind directions. Express them as vectors on a 2-D plane, then separately average the components in each dimension. Although this is somewhat obvious in the case of wind measurements, it works for times of day as well if you think of them as points on a 24-hour clock face.

Your medical friend was not checked out. She was busy stifling impolite laughter at your unfamiliarity with Cartesian coordinate systems.