acenes

6 ms·

1.
by acenes 2y ago
This system is very much alive in academia: a graduate student (apprentice) trains under a professor (master) to become a member of the guild (academia), after which they can go off and find their own work as a postdoc (journeyman) and even
2.
by acenes 3y ago
A recent example: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/26/science/moon-crash-japan-...
3.
by acenes 4y ago
Ioannidis is just butthurt that he has been criticized for being wrong https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-j...
4.
by acenes 4y ago
Do we no longer have the attention span to just read text? Do we need 'multiple entry points'? Do we have to convince the reader that each chunk of text will provide 'value' separate from others? How sad.
5.
by acenes 5y ago
But the reason why so many historical figures were tutored or homeschooled is because there was no adequate public education system. This is confusing correlation for causation. Indeed, Bertrand Russell wrote: > The method of a hereditar
6.
by acenes 5y ago
Thanks for the response. Is there any plan for Quarto to support live code, e.g. the reader can change the code and update the output? Or a feature that makes it easy to have a comment section for each page? I think these things are either
7.
by acenes 5y ago
So, why should one use the next generation? Because it is not tied to R or Python? We're all using one or the other so that doesn't sound like a convincing reason to completely change my workflow.
8.
by acenes 5y ago
I currently use bookdown and have dabbled with Jupyterbook. Why should I use this instead? I don't see any advantages, esp. for scientific and technical books / websites.
9.
by acenes 5y ago
Does anyone know of such a systematic replication effort in other fields of science? I wonder if the conclusion would be much different.
10.
by acenes 5y ago
We can't have a robot umpire for check swings because MLB doesn't define what a swing is - it is not in the rulebook.
11.
Against ‘Effective Altruism’(radicalphilosophy.com)
10 points by acenes 5y ago|2 comments
12.
by acenes 5y ago
Reviews of Nagel's book by actual philosophers: https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/mind-and-cosmos-why-the-material... https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/do-you-only-have-b... https:&#x
13.
by acenes 5y ago
Such a disappointing essay. There are so many ways in which the title or the first paragraph could be true without such garbled non sequiturs.
14.
by acenes 5y ago
I was vaguely aware of the 'feud', was more curious about your judgment that "Wilson has proved to be correct in every particular" (because I don't think this is true). Is there a reason to believe that the objectio
15.
by acenes 5y ago
care to elaborate?
16.
by acenes 5y ago
Here is another heuristic: if the paper is published in Nature/Science/Cell (for bio-related applications), then highly likely to be wrong/not generalizable.
17.
by acenes 5y ago
Anybody look at the original paper? I'm not convinced at all by their Fig 2 - that's more a blob than a precession.
18.
by acenes 5y ago
Sorry, but "back of the napkin" calculations are quick order-of-magnitude type estimates based on reasonable guesses or first principles, not by looking up numbers on the web (napkin not big enough to write out URLs; maybe use env
19.
by acenes 5y ago
"The simplest explanation is that these genes are adaptive." Really? That's the simplest explanation? https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.1979.008...
20.
Covid Heterodoxy in Three Layers [pdf](petergodfreysmith.com)
3 points by acenes 5y ago|0 comments
21.
by acenes 6y ago
It seems most commenters here think that the results can be explained by bias (e.g. on the part of teachers), or cultural factors / environment (e.g. schools are set up for women to do better), or personality differences (e.g. girls ar
22.
by acenes 6y ago
Let's not jump to conclusions. Yes, there have been numerous cases of "misses." But to evaluate the value of peer review for science, we need to know the "correct rejection" rates as well. Also note that we now know