TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

The DDoS attack of academic bullshit

97 pointsby Michelangelo11about 1 year ago

18 comments

kurthrabout 1 year ago
I agree with the fundamental problem, but I don&#x27;t really follow the analysis. I thought this would be more about the zillions of paper-mill journal articles used by &quot;academics&quot; to advance their careers. I don&#x27;t really agree that it&#x27;s all that much harder to search on most deep academic (eg beyond undergraduate) topics. You used to have to request or go into stacks to find physical journals, and even now most interesting research have search terms and topics that nobody would choose to search optimize for. You don&#x27;t use Google to find academic research most of the time.<p>Where I do disagree is that there aren&#x27;t enough qualified people to hold positions (at least in the US&#x2F;Europe) for academic research in the sciences. In fact much of the garbage is from people smart enough to competitively optimize their career at the expense of research and other researchers. That goes on to the departments that in turn optimize for # papers and $ grants for tenure decisions. The shame of Ranga Dias is on the department that ignored evidence of fraud as much as on him. The same for Tessier-Lavigne and the other scandals around Alzheimer&#x27;s research. There was too much focused money and people in academia for the fame and power rather than research.
评论 #40006189 未加载
评论 #40005852 未加载
sega_saiabout 1 year ago
I don&#x27;t see justification for these two statements: &quot;A doctorate just means much less, now, than it did. Most of today’s physicists would not measure up to the standards that the field held for itself when that photo was taken in 1927.&quot; I.e. sure, the number of awarded PhDs is larger, and therefore the number of Nobel prizes awarded per PhD is lower. Also at least in fundamental physics there was not much progress over last 20-40 years, especially if you compare it with early 20th century when quantum mechanics and general relativity were &#x27;created&#x27;. But I don&#x27;t know what that tells about an average PhD now vs average PhD then or &#x27;standards of the field&#x27;.
评论 #40006058 未加载
评论 #40005945 未加载
评论 #40006031 未加载
leoqaabout 1 year ago
Scientific literacy is at an all-time low (or rather it&#x27;s being leveraged at an all -time high), with Reddit and TikTok regurgitating &quot;Study finds .. &quot; articles without linking the study nor doing due diligence on the results. The amount of non-reproducible studies on child development, child attachment are wreaking havoc on well-meaning parents being influenced by group think.<p>For example, the APA does a pretty good job posting recommendations and citing sources. Those sources often lead back to studies with ~2k data points, often meta-analysis or in a single area, or from a past era that is no longer relevant.<p>The recommendation that mothers must exclusively breastfeed for at least 6 months is built on many studies that seem rather small or homogenous, and yet this recommendation is treated as if it is a prescription that must be followed. Try bringing up this nuanced argument with an exhausted mother who is &quot;failing&quot; to breastfeed a starving baby.
评论 #40006051 未加载
评论 #40008690 未加载
评论 #40006185 未加载
评论 #40006134 未加载
评论 #40005990 未加载
sirpenguinabout 1 year ago
Very clever to write an article that is the very thing that it criticizes, the entryway into a certain &quot;marketing funnel.&quot;<p>What I got out is this: &quot;Good information is scarce and strong research skills are therefore increasingly valuable. Guess what, we (my consulting firm) specialize in giving just the kind of actionable advice you need.&quot;<p>Appropriate for the author&#x27;s image to be of the ourobouros.<p>More charitably though, it&#x27;s fine for the market to offer solutions to this problem, as long as it&#x27;s not conflated with the space for &quot;serious leisure&quot; that mere curious nerds subsist on in all ages.<p>Leisure is by definition an end in itself. It just happens that without it people and societies alike cease to function well. What can we do to expand the space for serious but aimless thinking in this age?
评论 #40009056 未加载
Animatsabout 1 year ago
It&#x27;s that broad a problem?<p>I usually see this in battery papers, where a legit paper on some minor advance in surface chemistry is hyped into a supposed world-changing result. Electrek, or somebody in that space, should publish a &quot;1, 5 and 10 years ago in battery hype&quot; column. We know now that most social science papers do not describe repeatable results. In what other fields is this a problem?
评论 #40006288 未加载
评论 #40006886 未加载
martinclaytonabout 1 year ago
I don&#x27;t disagree with the article - enjoyed it. The 5th Solvay is somewhat of an outlier: majority of the folks in the famous photo were Nobel laureates or laureates to be, which must be some sort of record.<p>Unfortunately, everything is held back by the en(bull)shitification cycle we&#x27;re in, not just academe. This seems to be an area where LLMs will make a big difference: what we think now is a flood will turn out to be the receding tide before the tsunami.
alexashkaabout 1 year ago
I wish people had more to say besides what makes them unhappy, followed by &#x27;the good old days&#x27; or a remedy that&#x27;s worse than the disease.<p>To dress complaining up in historical details and to go on for pages is ironic. Is the author not guilty of the very thing he&#x27;s complaining <i>about</i>?
rrr_oh_manabout 1 year ago
This dude&#x27;s blog is a gold mine. I love the direct language. Thank you for posting this!
评论 #40008148 未加载
apiabout 1 year ago
I don&#x27;t think this is wholly wrong, but there is an alternate explanation for why a small number of physicists advanced the field so much in the early 20th century while a ton of physicists don&#x27;t advance it today.<p>All the low hanging fruit has been picked.<p>All we have left today in fundamental physics is the edges of particle physics and quantum gravity, and the latter has so far proven hard to research without convenient access to a black hole or a particle accelerator the size of the Moon&#x27;s orbit. Convenient access to a black hole would be so cool we even made a movie about it (Interstellar).<p>Outside fundamental physics a ton of these new physicists are working on important but niche problems: superconductivity, condensed matter, plasma physics, fusion, all kinds of materials science, etc. A lot of that stuff didn&#x27;t exist at all back then, or only existed as a theory prediction or a proof of concept.<p>A similar problem exists in other hard science disciplines. It&#x27;s just easiest to wrap your head around in physics because the edges of our understanding are more clear.<p>Soft sciences and humanities are by definition factional and open ended, so in that case more people just means more discourse.<p>My point is that I think more than one thing is going on, and I don&#x27;t think you can attribute stagnation to a single cause.<p>When you make &quot;then and now&quot; comparisons, you have to look at the entire picture of what has changed. Single-cause analysis is almost always wrong.
jancsikaabout 1 year ago
&gt; When you looked for information about how to tell if your bread is rising correctly, or about South Korean cement manufacturing, or <i>the musical influences on Igor Stravinsky</i>, or whatever weird thing, Google would pull up high-quality reference material, or blogs and BBS arguments among disagreeable weirdos who specialized in the subject and usually knew what they were talking about.<p>Going to rankly speculate the author added &quot;musical influences on Igor Stravinsky&quot; without doing the work of seeing what gets returned today.<p>Let&#x27;s run &quot;musical influences on Stravinsky&quot; in Google:<p>1. Encyclopedia Britannica entry for Stravinsky. Bog standard<p>2. A three-year old article on Stravinsky from The Guardian. Not specifically about influences, but it does mention Rimsky-Korsakov as his teacher, so there&#x27;s that<p>3. &quot;Stravinsky&quot; article from the World History Encyclopedia. Has a whole section on &quot;Musical Style&quot; which mentions all kinds of influences, including Debussy (who I know he copy-pasted from for the beginning of The Nightingale[1], so that checks out)<p>4. &quot;Stravinsky&quot; Wikipedia entry. Bog standard<p>5. 100 years of Stravinsky&#x27;s influence. Got it backwards, but hey nobody&#x27;s perfect<p>6. Some SUNY music 101 &quot;Stravinsky&quot; page which lists a lot of influences, including some more obscure ones Taruskin talked about (probably in his book on Stravinsky)<p>...<p>Looks pretty damned good to me.<p>Moral: don&#x27;t pad a rule-of-three list with a musical example without first making sure you are correct.<p>1: Probably also transposed it, I don&#x27;t have the Nuages score in front of me atm
评论 #40006086 未加载
MeetingsBrowserabout 1 year ago
&gt; You have to start from the assumption that it’s Out To Get You, because nine times out of ten, it is. Maybe it’s activist bullshit based around tendentiously redefining words, or maybe it’s built on fabricated medical data, or maybe it’s some kind of statistical jiggery-pokery to pull statistical significance out of unreplicable noise<p>Or maybe its a rant with made up claims that the past was just better™.<p>Were academic papers in past really better on average, or are you only reading the best ones that survived the past half century.<p>Is the average PhD really worse today, or are you comparing them to the top minds of the past century.<p>&gt; A hundred years ago, all the important physicists knew each other and were in constant dialogue<p>This seems like a particularly egregious claim. It is easier than ever to communicate with almost anyone in the world in close to real time.<p>Is there really a solid argument to be made that the top physicists collaborated more easily 100 years ago?<p>Were there any other major world events happening around 1924 that may have influenced a rapid advance in physics and technology? something kind of the opposite of collaboration?
评论 #40007017 未加载
incomingpainabout 1 year ago
&gt;I tried to explain how it used to be easier to find information from good-faith experts, but I don’t think I really got the point across. Let me try again.<p>It&#x27;s shocking to me how quick this changed as well.<p>&gt;Back in 1999, few people had figured out how to take advantage of search engines that way.<p>Even basic rules like &quot;mandatoryterm&quot; or -dontshowterm were super powerful but don&#x27;t even bother with that today. It&#x27;ll just make your results worse.<p>&gt;Worse, the weirdo specialists have a harder time finding each other.<p>The trick now is to use a better search engine. It&#x27;s rare that I use google for search.<p>&gt;What I know for sure is that when I read academic work published in 2014, I’m pretty likely roll my eyes and mutter about how no serious person would even bother with this crap and set it aside,<p>Author doesn&#x27;t know about the 2005 conflict of interest legislation; infringing on freedom of speech technically but nobody is arguing for anything else. Medicine and social sciences has gone through a massive upheaval over this. You dont hear much about violent video games activists anymore because after the social science had to start declaring their conflict of interest the movement died. Entirely because better science displaced it.<p>Cholesterol being a bad thing is also a shocking change since 2005. It turns out a great deal of the science that said it was bad was pre-2005 and now since conflict of interests must be declared, dietary cholesterol basically doesnt matter. It turns out the cereal companies published false science to blame cholesterol for what they were causing.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.healthline.com&#x2F;nutrition&#x2F;dietary-cholesterol-does-not-matter" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.healthline.com&#x2F;nutrition&#x2F;dietary-cholesterol-doe...</a>
graycatabout 1 year ago
I&#x27;ll postulate a semi-secret, conspiratorial reason for <i>research</i>: National security!!!<p>Uh, sure, maybe nearly all the research is junk, but tough to PROVE that it&#x27;s junk and will forever remain junk. Soooo, instead, suddenly some day some research might be revolutionary, powerful enough to affect national security. E.g., one of those math profs working in number theory or <i>modular forms</i>, what can look like really goofy research, 2000 year old number theory questions, might suddenly break all the encryption!!! Or maybe a physics prof will work out quantum gravity, dark matter, or dark energy with big consequences.<p>Soooo, each country that can afford it wants to be out at the frontiers either doing that research or at least being able to understand it if some other country does it first. And if not national security, then the national economy.<p>Soooo, in the committee rooms and offices in Congress, maybe something like &quot;Remember the bomb, the atom BOMB!!! We can&#x27;t risk falling behind.&quot; Or, as J. B. Conant supposedly once said, &quot;... have so many funding sources that they can never all be turned off at the same time&quot;. Sooo, have NSF, DARPA, DoE, NRL, .... Right, we can&#x27;t understand the papers, but the researchers are in an intense competition, trying their best to do good research, to the extent that anyone knows what <i>good</i> research is. And, the profs don&#x27;t get paid very well -- the research is cheap. Soooo, have grants to MIT, Harvard, Cornell, Cal Tech, etc. Have national labs, LLL, Brookhaven, etc. Pass out the money and relax that we aren&#x27;t going to be blind sided by Russia, China, ....<p>&quot;Besides, a fraction of the grants is taken by the colleges as <i>overhead</i> so that we are also supporting higher education!&quot; I suggest that Congress can think that way!<p>And, in the game between the US and Russia, publishing openly is essentially a <i>saddle point</i>: If we don&#x27;t publish, then they won&#x27;t publish and we won&#x27;t have their results to build on and they might get ahead of us without our knowing it.
BlueTemplarabout 1 year ago
What happened to secondary education being first about making well-rounded citizens ? And writing a thesis being about the intellectual challenge of pushing into new territory ? Should only a very very few chosen people be allowed that one ?! What is this elitist bullshit !?!<p>Forgive my anger, but I was expecting at least <i>some</i> argument against that position, but it has just been... ignored.<p>Finally, yeah, a ~decade ago things seemed grim on the publishing bullshit side, but now it seems like we are seeing the end of the tunnel, they even give an example towards the end. (Ditto for search engines, I would have agreed merely a year ago, but same thing with the likes of Kagi and the EU <i>finally</i> starting to flex its power against GAFAMs...)
评论 #40006093 未加载
graycatabout 1 year ago
&quot;... academic bullshit&quot; is quite broad.<p>Since my Ph.D. is in applied math and since for a while I was a college prof, I have a view:<p>A common criterion for publishing research was that the work was &quot;new, correct, and significant&quot;.<p>Then what should be the criterion for a Ph.D. dissertation? Easily and commonly enough, &quot;new, correct, and significant&quot;, or &quot;an original contribution to knowledge worthy of publication&quot;.<p>Rest of the criteria for a Ph.D.? Good background of knowledge in the field, both for research and for teaching. Sooooo, have <i>qualifying exams</i> (QE). The QE I took were not easy. Only about 20% passed. I was the best in the class on 4 of the 5 exams, but what I did for all 4 was due heavily to independent study, 3 before grad school and the 4th in a summer during grad school.<p>So, in what I saw, a Ph.D. was not easy, and there was no glut of graduates.<p>By the way, I paid nothing to the university.<p>Then, due ONLY to help my wife, who suffered terribly for her Ph.D., I took a faculty position. They wanted <i>research</i>, and anything published in any academic journal was sufficient. No need to get financial grants.<p>My attitude: (1) The research they were asking for, and from the other profs were getting, was junk. (2) I wasn&#x27;t getting paid enough: Really, brought two cars and left with the same two. Didn&#x27;t have enough to buy a house and start a family. Net, LOST money. So, I had no respect for that career direction.<p>It does appear that broadly there has been a big change, at least in US academics: Somehow it is popular to insist that all profs do <i>research</i> -- just teaching is no longer sufficient. Soooo, we get a lot of papers published. Papers? You want papers? Okay, we&#x27;ll give you papers ....<p>My summary view: To buy a house, support a family, have a good, secure life, need to look at the US economy, say, <i>more closely</i> than just stay in school, get a Ph.D., accept a position as an assistant prof. E.g., at present the US has a lot of $1 million houses: It appears that few of them were bought just from earnings as an assistant prof, and the people in those houses found some sources of money better than just such a college prof salary.
SubiculumCodeabout 1 year ago
This rant is not worthy of the front page of HN.<p>Its all, <i>&quot;Make Science Great Again&quot; &quot;because believe you me, back in the day things were great&quot;; now not so much. Some are good, but its hard to know, cuz but most are lying stupid rats, coming over, looking to bilk you.&quot;</i><p>Nope. Not buying the outrage.
评论 #40006166 未加载
isotypicabout 1 year ago
I disagree with some of the later points the author brings up - the sentiment of &quot;SEO is ruining searching for things&quot; is certainly agreeable, but I find the connection to academia a bit more specious and extreme.<p>&gt; Today it would be effectively impossible for a physicist to personally know all the other top physicists. In the U.S., the number of physics PhDs awarded per year grew from under 20 in 1900, to nearly 2,000 by 2018. Imagine trying to get all the leading theorists together for a group photo today.<p>What is the point here? It is a fact that knowledge expands and grows. If you collect all of the &quot;top physicists&quot;, by some magical metric, you get physicists from vastly different subfields who probably wouldn&#x27;t understand each others research. This is a good thing! We understand so much more about physics that you have entire sub-sub-fields warranting the same attention as quantum mechanics did at its beginnings.<p>&gt; A doctorate just means much less, now, than it did. The fraction of physicists who can generate genuine new knowledge and insight is fairly small. Most of today’s physicists would not measure up to the standards that the field held for itself when that photo was taken in 1927.<p>This is... frustrating. Of course if you compare to the mythologized greats of physics you won&#x27;t be as good. That doesn&#x27;t mean what you are working on isn&#x27;t new, or interesting, or important. The author seems to want every PhD to discover quantum mechanics. But that&#x27;s already been done. Also, I would pushback on the author having the ability to judge whether a physicist is able to generate new knowledge.<p>&gt; The dilution of the top experts doesn’t only mean that it’s harder for you and me and the New York Times to tell the first-rate researchers apart from the sea of mediocrities.<p>Work from physicists from the early to mid 1900s is of course going to seen to be on average better than the average work in physics today - we aren&#x27;t going to still be looking at the stuff that was below average&#x2F;didn&#x27;t work out! There is an inherent survivorship bias in what ideas survive 100 years, but that doesn&#x27;t mean that all ideas from that time were of equal importance. Also, if you are looking at the probably greatest period of advancement in physics, as the author seems to be, given their prior focus on physics, of course modern day stuff is going to pale in comparison. But of course if you compare to the 99th percentile everything else seems lesser.<p>&gt; It’s also harder for those on the cutting edge to find each other.<p>This is just untrue - the people working in these areas know which journals&#x2F;conferences are higher quality and which are worse, and are in direct communication with their colleagues. As an outsider attempting to peer in, yes, you won&#x27;t have this knowledge. But the conclusion from that isn&#x27;t that the experts also struggle with this, the conclusion is the hidden knowledge should be made more open.<p>&gt; When an important new theory is published, instead of being circulated and torn apart by the two dozen people whose opinions matter, it’s sent off to some nameless apparatchik for the hollow bureaucratic ritual of peer review, so that the reviewer can demand bogus citations for himself and his friends.<p>I don&#x27;t see where the author is going on this - the &quot;circulated and torn apart&quot; step still happens, though perhaps less violently. Academics do not see a peer reviewed article and assume &quot;this is a good article, I will accept it at face value&quot;, they read over it, they might discuss it with colleagues, the authors presents at conferences, etc. Peer review is not the end of the process, its just a gatekeep to prevent the lowest quality from making it through. Yes, there are problems with the process, but certainly not enough to warrant the disdain the author shows. Furthermore, preprints are a common feature of some fields. If your theory is truly groundbreaking, post it to the arXiv, and it will eventually make its way around. Perelman&#x27;s work is only on the arXiv, for instance.<p>I hope my points make some degree of sense.
Solvencyabout 1 year ago
We get it. It&#x27;s been garbage for over 6 years. Possibly edging on a decade. Yes Google is aware and complicit. No they&#x27;re not going to change it. Why? Because it PRINTS MONEY for them.
评论 #40005708 未加载
评论 #40007473 未加载