The Value Of Publication

[Doctordick]

Well, I just got my latest issue of “American Scientist” and am moved to relate some experiences of my research on my Ph.D. thesis. In theoretical physics, most research consists of reading journal articles and the references indicated by those authors. It is quite clear that if all one reads are the articles being referenced by the current highly respected authors, you get the distinct impression that physicists are a rather brilliant lot. However, when I went to look up a reference of interest, I had a habit of reading the other articles in the journal containing the referenced paper, just out of pure curiosity. I often read those journals from front to back.

 

That gives you a rather different impression of publishing scientists. My impression was that most of those articles were written by simple minded twits who spent little little to no time actually thinking out the truth propositions. In my opinion, most of the stuff published in the professional journals is not worth the paper it is printed on. I once brought this up to my thesis adviser who's response rather astounded me. He said that, “physics is not concerned with truth, that's a philosophical problem, physics is a social community and, if you want to succeed, you have to play the game”.

 

I was reminded of that assertion when I read “Honesty”, an article in the latest issue of “American Scientist” by John F. Ahearne.

 

Triggered by ethical lapses in two prominent physics cases, the American Physical Society (APS) formed a Task Force on Ethics. The team, led by Frances Houle, surveyed all APS members who had completed a Ph.D. within the past three years. The results, published in 2004, were disturbing: 39 percent of respondents said they had personal knowledge of ethical transgressions, the two most common of which were inclusion of inappropriate authors on a publication and exclusion of appropriate authors. One respondent wrote that “many breaches of ethics arise from the pressure to publish .... The recent sad events [show] that it is for many people more important to publish spectacular results then to publish true results."

It was exactly that pressure to publish which drove me out of the professional physics community. I had no desire to put forth worthless trash to fill the journals. I instead wished to have something worth saying before attempting publication. That position of course directly led to the fact that none of my discoveries have ever been published.

 

I tried to publish back in the 1980s but was rejected by every journal to whom I made a submission. In 1982 I went to my thesis adviser (the same guy I mentioned above) for assistance in getting it published. In addition to not offering me any assistance he also asserted that, “no one will ever read your stuff because you haven't paid your dues!” (I took that to refer to the fact that I hadn't published.) He also refused to read it himself.

 

So you will forgive me if I feel somewhat vindicated by the fact that almost half the professionals in physics are well aware of the fact that a large percentage of physics is based on undefendable results. Clearly acceptance for publication is not a valid measure of proper intellectual analysis.

 

And Rade certainly can not be as dumb as his posts make him appear. If he thinks my “if-then” assertions are false, why doesn't he point out the flaw. Perhaps there was an underlying assumption that his gas tank had a leak! At least I looked for the assumption. :lol:

 

He is back on my ignore list and, in my mind, should be on everybody's!

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Kriminal99]

What is the racial breakdown in that discipline in academia? I ask because in my area, Computer Science, it is clear that Affirmative Action has clearly taken it's toll. In a way this area is a bit of a test case for what would happen if all of academia where to be afflicted with this same problem. At my university and a nearby one, one of which is rather prestigious in this area (not something I was initially looking for) there is by far a majority of foreign professors. They hail from countries with average IQs in the 80s and 90s, yet are disproportionately represented in American universities. All but a few of the students also hail from these locations. Of course there are some geniuses from those locations, but with Affirmative Action we are not limiting participation to those elite few.

 

I bring up the issue of race because it is an obvious cause for a drop in average IQ in Academics. Were everyone uniform, there would be less reason to recruit a 105 IQ academic over a 130 IQ one. And once lower IQ people are allowed to participate, the problem compounds. Professors receive no specialized training in education or the scientifically validated significance of IQ. When a lower IQ "professor" sees a student who succeeds with minimal effort and has novel ideas that he spends time pursuing, vs a student who works very hard and struggles just to memorize the basic facts given in class... the low IQ professor has a deep yearning to promote the lower intelligence student over the more capable one. These people work to institute their selfish desires into the system. Professors talk about how you do not need to invent a new mathematical formula or a new branch of science to be successful, but rather only need to make some minor contribution. They promote the idea that it is arrogant and foolhardy to try to contribute anything of significance. They promote intolerance and forced handicapping of intelligent students - the very people capable of making significant contributions.

 

A hallmark of IQ is the ability to create higher level categories from your observations. This allows you to do everything you might see tested on an IQ test better. For instance, consider learning more vocabulary. If you naturally noticed that some people with power did not use it towards selfish ends but rather according to rules that served some greater purpose - then when that context is presented with the label "honor" you immediately correlate the two. This is a low IQ example to make sure everyone can understand, but there are people with low enough IQ's who cannot learn this concept naturally. The same thing occurs with digit-span mathematics questions... the higher IQ the more patterns in numbers or shapes you immediately recognize.

 

Thus people with high intelligence may deductively reason in ways that people of lower intelligence cannot follow simply because they do not have the abstract categories to use as premises. In cases where the low IQ academic accepts that such a person is usually right (usually because they have to when the person is more established) they attribute it to some sort of mystic genius which to them might as well be psychic powers. When they do not accept it (perhaps because they are now the ones who are more established) they attempt to discredit it or look for excuses when the claims are validated experimentally (unnecessarily, from the perspective of a higher intelligence participant). They may even go so far as accusing someone of plagiarism when they find the same the result validated in another publication using unnecessary experimentation.

 

If science is like a tree with infinite branches, IQ dictates how large of a branch you can contribute. The level of generalization you are able to understand controls how generally applicable any results you are able to provide are. Small enough branches can simply be inferred by people of with sufficient intelligence in the private sector without specialization. So even if there was a IQ ranking system, people below a certain point would not be useful to the network, and it should be clear that people at the top would be invaluable not inherently but because of what they would be able to accomplish.

 

The lower average IQ of the academic network, the less the network as a whole will be able to accomplish. At progressively lower levels of intelligence, simpler and simpler claims will have to be verified through experimentation instead of deductive reasoning. More and more capable people will be discouraged and locked out.

 

And then there is racial tension... If you are a high IQ Caucasian male asking difficult questions of an average Indian professor, a people with a long history of oppression by the British, forget about it. They won't even try to conceal their behavior, they will straw man everything you say and write both in class and on exams and then refuse to listen to any explanation of what you really meant.

 

But if a person actually is stupid as you like to say so much, it is not their fault any more than you are responsible for whatever gifts of intelligence you were born with. Intelligence is a responsibility to do things that make other people's lives easier because only you can, and people with lower intelligence are just as capable of being happy and playing some part in the grand scheme of things.

 

The world cannot afford for people like you to take an elitist attitude or see yourself as some kind of outcast. This is just what happens when you allow their insecurity driven attempts at subversion to get to you, and then you do not accomplish whatever you were supposed to accomplish and we are all worse off for it. Are you really that weak? If you are so smart try and find a way to make them understand. Mind you, not that I have been much more successful. But at least try.

[CraigD]

In theoretical physics, most research consists of reading journal articles and the references indicated by those authors. It is quite clear that if all one reads are the articles being referenced by the current highly respected authors, you get the distinct impression that physicists are a rather brilliant lot. However, when I went to look up a reference of interest, I had a habit of reading the other articles in the journal containing the referenced paper, just out of pure curiosity. I often read those journals from front to back.

 

That gives you a rather different impression of publishing scientists. My impression was that most of those articles were written by simple minded twits who spent little little to no time actually thinking out the truth propositions.

I lack your training, Dick (I’ve a mere BS in Math, preceded and followed by general and specialized computer programming work), so can read physics journals only slowly, with much studying. However, even with my limited understanding, many papers strike me as having been written only for the sake of publishing something – if not by “simple minded twits”, at best be people not trying very hard.

 

Your observation reminded me of the thread Disturbing Headlines, which featured the article In 2 Years, China Will Surpass the US in Science Research, in which its author (a classics professor) reaches its title conclusion based on the trend in the number of papers published in China and the US. By the same reasoning, 2005 “surpassed” 1905 (the year Einstein published 4 papers, including on the photoelectric effect and special relativity) in physics by a factor of hundreds or more. Clearly, in scientific publications as well as in most things, quality counts for more than quantity.

 

In my opinion, most of the stuff published in the professional journals is not worth the paper it is printed on. I once brought this up to my thesis adviser who's response rather astounded me. He said that, “physics is not concerned with truth, that's a philosophical problem, physics is a social community and, if you want to succeed, you have to play the game”.

 

I was reminded of that assertion when I read “Honesty”, an article in the latest issue of “American Scientist” by John F. Ahearne.

I think what Ahearne is talking about in Honesty (appreciating that, unlike journals like Nature and Science, American Scientist provides free non-subscriber access to articles like this) is less that scientists avoid ontological and epistemological questions of truth, than that too often, they outright lie (fabricate and falsify – not the good kind that Popper meant as a central feature of scientific theories, but “changing data or results”) and steal (plagiarize – “the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit”). Philosophical shallowness is one thing, but egregiously making stuff up is worse – by scientific standards, at least. In internet culture, and to some extent liberal arts culture in general, this hierarchy is often reversed, chutzpah being more prized than honesty. As Hemmingway is said to have said (having stolen it from TS Eliot, who stole it from Picasso) “the mediocre imitate, the truly great steal”.

 

It was exactly that pressure to publish which drove me out of the professional physics community. I had no desire to put forth worthless trash to fill the journals. I instead wished to have something worth saying before attempting publication. That position of course directly led to the fact that none of my discoveries have ever been published.

 

I tried to publish back in the 1980s but was rejected by every journal to whom I made a submission. In 1982 I went to my thesis adviser (the same guy I mentioned above) for assistance in getting it published. In addition to not offering me any assistance he also asserted that, “no one will ever read your stuff because you haven't paid your dues!” (I took that to refer to the fact that I hadn't published.) He also refused to read it himself.

We’ve mentioned so far the qualities of truth, sophistication (a name for the continuum on which simple-mindedness lies), quantity, quality, and honesty, but not yet utility. Of these, I believe utility is the greatest contributor to success (a nebulously difficult term to define, but, intuitively, what distinguishes the prominent from the obscure, the little or not published from the prolifically published). As the homily goes, “build a better (more useful) mousetrap (or scientific theory, or mathematical formalism, or system of mystical belief, etc) and the world will beat a path to your door.”

 

Were you 1980s papers useful to the people who read them, Dick? Though you say that your thesis adviser refused to read one of them, but presumably he had to read enough of it to know he didn’t want to read it.

 

The few noteworthy contributions I’ve made to math and computing – which I’d number three – have been noteworthy purely because they were useful. In two cases, their utility was obvious, and I needed do little more to promote them than to have a professor in my undergrad department coauthor one (a method for generating gamma random variables from discrete continuous ones), and a diffuse clique of statistical modelers proliferate another (a permuter algorithm). In the third (a purposefully “vague” indexing method), I had to literally save a half dozen projects at two companies, and abuse my organizer position at a conference to gain a captive panel discussion audience to generate just a few “ah-ha” epiphanic moments for a few folks. My “deep” work (mostly heretical approaches to inventing data compression algorithms) was, and continues to be, almost entirely a private passion, attractive only to a rare and typically inebriated audience.

 

Clearly acceptance for publication is not a valid measure of proper intellectual analysis.

Beginning a sentence with “clearly” when only a few people find the following proposition clear isn’t, I think ... honest. Using the adjective “proper” without formally defining it in context is a fallacious appeal to authority.

 

Precision in language may, as described in 1994 Newbery Medal winning novel The Giver, lead ultimately to profound threats to human culture as we now conceive of it, but in the short term, it’s tremendously useful for communication. We should all, I think, strive to use it.

 

Have fun -- Dick

Have been, am, and will continue doing! :)

[Kriminal99]

I’ve a mere BS in Math, preceded and followed by general and specialized computer programming work

Pretty much had that figured...

 

Clearly, in scientific publications as well as in most things, quality counts for more than quantity.

Clearly... however the people responsible for those "dime a dozen" papers are taking over some departments and they have a whole mentality that goes along with it. It basically goes something like, people who publish great results just get lucky that their little contribution hit a gold mine... Anyone who actually tries to make a significant contribution is just arrogant, foolhardy, white privileged etc etc..

 

It is more than possible to create a local pocket of reality in a particular department in which more substantial papers are rejected, just because the faculty there are pretty much too stupid and empowered (a dangerous combination) to understand it. When I spoke to the graduate dean he said that this type of issue is supposed to be counteracted by the apprenticeship like nature of graduate school. Meaning if there is one person within your standard deviation of intelligence who you have no other major issues with that you can work with, you can work with them and not have a problem. Every professor must respect the possibility that you have someone else in your corner even if they don't like or understand you.

 

So you could get the false impression just by talking to a few bad eggs that you are going to have problems in a department, but if you find one guy... he might know just where to submit your paper. However on the other hand, once these people start getting in the department, they actively try to unbalance things in their favor till there is no one reasonable left.

 

As Hemmingway is said to have said (having stolen it from TS Eliot, who stole it from Picasso) “the mediocre imitate, the truly great steal”.

 

I had a single idea stolen from me by a relatively stupid professor. He didn't really try to hide it however and just acted as if he was entitled to do it. He basically had offered to help me with my research, then flipped and did a 180 after I had explained to him some of the ideas. He really only understood one small part of what I was explaining to him, but apparently it was relevant to a project he was aware of. He acted petty and jealous, asking how >I< came up with something like that. Instead of doing anything with the idea himself, he gave the idea to a phd student (of his race) to help a cyber-security project he was working on. Of course he refused to help me after that. Technically according to the system he hadn't done anything wrong. To get my degree I needed a faculty member, the majority of which were low IQ foreigners with insecurities towards genius Caucasians. Most of these people would have done the same damn thing, and it doesn't even count as academic dishonesty. I wonder how many responders were referencing things like that.

 

We’ve mentioned so far the qualities of truth, sophistication (a name for the continuum on which simple-mindedness lies), quantity, quality, and honesty, but not yet utility.

 

The utility of a paper can really only be judged by someone with an IQ in the same range as the person who wrote it. No doubt there are un-useful papers. However a 115 IQ professor cannot accurately judge the utility of a 150 IQ academic's paper.

 

The few noteworthy contributions I’ve made to math and computing – which I’d number three – have been noteworthy purely because they were useful.

 

My interpretation of this is minor addition to a well understood topic, which anyone in the private sector making use of that area would have deduced themselves anyways.

 

In two cases, their utility was obvious, and I needed do little more to promote them than to have a professor in my undergrad department coauthor one (a method for generating gamma random variables from discrete continuous ones)

 

Did you just say "discrete continuous"? What the heck are you talking about? If you are talking about discrete random variables, it's obvious how to do that. If you are talking about continuous random variables, that is the definition of gamma distribution? You mean with different means? That is also obvious...

 

 

, and a diffuse clique of statistical modelers proliferate another (a permuter algorithm).

Ah the old make a tool trick... I think there should be a distinct difference between publishing free stuff and contributing to current level of understanding.

 

In the third (a purposefully “vague” indexing method), I had to literally save a half dozen projects at two companies, and abuse my organizer position at a conference to gain a captive panel discussion audience to generate just a few “ah-ha” epiphanic moments for a few folks.

 

Oh... so you are capable you just sold out in hopes it would give you the opportunity to contribute something useful.. and it didn't work... and so now you are pretty much just like us, but arguing with us for god knows what reason. I guess because you consider yourself successful. Having been born with more money than I know what to do with, I am left to gauge my success by how much I can affect the world with what I know.

 

Purposely vague indexing sounds suspiciously like a method for attributing things or correlating to classes of data instead of single instances. I use this technique myself in a universal classification algorithm. Except a more general version - the data objects vaguely index each other a la Hopfield nets that drop portions of themselves when they don't match up completely. Well, minus the computational complexity of actual Hopfield nets.

 

 

My “deep” work (mostly heretical approaches to inventing data compression algorithms) was, and continues to be, almost entirely a private passion, attractive only to a rare and typically inebriated audience.

 

SELLOUT

[Rade]

What exactly is the motivation for the thread ?

 

Clearly no one that reads this forum believes that it is unnecessary for scientists to publish new ideas, results of experiments, etc.--correct ? I have read many articles in American Scientist. It was never my impression that they were written by "simple-minded-twits", as suggested by our good Doctordick.

 

Perhaps a better test of the presence of a simple-minded-twit as a so-called scientist would be someone on this forum that blocks the posts of others from their view only because they have a different worldview or philosophy ?

 

OK, here is a good test, could someone please identify all the simple-minded-twits that co-authored this article that I am now reading, the results of which, if verified, will change nuclear physics in a fundamental way:

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.0699

[Kriminal99]

What exactly is the motivation for the thread ?

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.0699

 

The issue is simple. What is the value of publishing if everyone does it just for the sake of publishing?

 

Smart people publish amazing ideas. Everyone says "OOOOHHH I want to be smart too"! System assimilates less intelligent people. The bar is lowered to let them publish. Even less intelligent people say "MEEE TOO!" Bar lowered again.

 

Now not only does publishing plummet in value... but the network is dominated by stupid people who can't understand amazing ideas and hate people who try to publish them for challenging their sense of equality.

[Rade]

The issue is simple. What is the value of publishing if everyone does it just for the sake of publishing?

Indeed, you present a simple notion. Not a good choice of words for you to argue the value of actions by "everyone".

 

Have you ever published a peer reviewed scientific paper ? If no, OK, your comments then put into perspective. If yes, did you publish for the "sake of publishing" ? Even if yes, this does not lead to the logical conclusion that such is the motivation why other scientists publish. So, again I ask, what is the motivation for this thread topic ?

 

Smart people publish amazing ideas.

Sure' date=' and smart people publish not so amazing ideas. Likewise, not so smart people publish both amazing and not so amazing ideas. The conclusion of your argument, that the standard bar to publish has been lowered over time because more and more not so smart people publish, has no factual backing. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Take a look at the articles published in the journals [i']Nature[/i] and Science 75 years ago. The standard bar to publish was much lower than it is today, most of the papers published in these two journals 75 years ago would not meet the standard bar applied today. The rate of rejection of manuscripts by journals has increased over time, not decreased. The basic premise of your argument is false.

 

....the network is dominated by stupid people who can't understand amazing ideas and hate people who try to publish them for challenging their sense of equality.

Examine your word choice here [dominate' date= stupid people, hate, challenge, equality]--it informs your personality. What I get from this is that you think that people of low intelligence dominate control of the "network" of peer reviewed scientific publications, and they hate people like you (clearly the sharpest knife in the box), only because you are so sharp, and submit for publication amazing ideas that remind them how genetically inferior intellectually they are to sharp folk like you, thus they vote to send you a rejection letter informing you that your amazing manuscript was not good enough for publication. Well, no wonder you find little value to scientific publication. Perhaps you should become Editor of your own scientific journal ?

[Rade]

If he [Rade] thinks my “if-then” assertions are false, why doesn't he point out the flaw.

The flaw is your thinking that, because an if-then assertion is logically true, it must be factually true. So, consider the following if-then assertion which is logically true by application of symbolic logic:

 

If physicists fly, then Doctordick is a Ph.D. trained physicist.

 

Good Doctor, your logically true if-then statements have equally as much truth in fact, as the above. So, no wonder you find little value to scientific publication if you submitted for publication a manuscript using the logic of your above if-then statements (those found in your OP) as justification for a new amazing idea, and your argument was rejected by peer reviewers.

[Kriminal99]

Take a look at the articles published in the journals Nature and Science 75 years ago. The standard bar to publish was much lower than it is today, most of the papers published in these two journals 75 years ago would not meet the standard bar applied today. The rate of rejection of manuscripts by journals has increased over time, not decreased. The basic premise of your argument is false.

 

Examine your word choice here [dominate, stupid people, hate, challenge, equality]--it informs your personality.

 

First of all, having a high IQ is not a personality trait. At least not in the sense you are trying to imply. It IS on the other hand a cause for a rift between whoever has it and other people. People have this sense of fairness that gets warped into wanting people to have equal level of ability in all things. Having a high IQ, and actually being able to use it to acquire a large amount of crystallized knowledge as well causes people to inherently dislike you. It is simply not true that you can overcome this by not acting prideful or something like that. There is no way to soften the blow enough to make people accept it. It is the simple fact that you can do something that they cannot that makes them hate you. So unless you find a way to act less capable and intelligent than you really are, you are screwed.

 

Becoming self aware, and realizing what is going on is also not a personality trait. I have the right to defend myself against an onslaught of naive egalitarianism constantly trying to attribute personality flaws to me to compensate for my higher level of ability. Saying there is something wrong with me for defending against such behavior is a morally indefensible position. You just don't get it... You think you are being the reasonable person here saying the reasonable thing. YOU AREN'T! I am the reasonable person. I am the one who is in the right, not you...

 

The way that I see the world compared to the way most people see the world... there is no comparison as to what I can accomplish and how I can influence the outcome of events vs. how they can. When you are one of these people you just know it - it is just simple fact. It is not arrogant or prideful to acknowledge it any more than it is for you to acknowledge your ability to see the logic behind 2+2 = 4.

 

Anyways, a rate of rejection for papers doesn't prove anything. It could simply mean that more incompetent people are trying to contribute to academia. I personally witnessed a person (a person that based on his social behavior was clearly below average intelligence, but also had very low GRE scores but was the same race as the Grad advisor) get a phd for watching movies inside an MRI machine. The guy did not control for things like whether the person had seen the movie before. The university I attended was clearly acting as a degree mill for relatively stupid foreigners - there was many other such low IQ phd students. Having worked with these people in groups, they were utterly useless for anything. Many of the professors were almost as bad, demonstrating extremely immature behavior towards students.

 

Publishing no longer holds any value, it is a very simple point. Any argument has to be adjusted in terms of density based on the IQ of the reader. If you constantly introduce lower and lower IQ people into the network under the label "Affirmative Action", what happens is everything published is scoffed at by the private sector. Do you know how often publications are the butt of jokes of people with real jobs for having obvious results?

 

The intellectual elite seem to have created a separate arena for themselves by having papers that deal with theory and solve problems being addressed by dozens and dozens of papers by lower class academics. But once these people come to understand the prestige associated with this, they try to invade that arena too. They use social pressure to subvert the real purpose of the network in favor of letting everyone participate.

[Rade]

Publishing no longer holds any value, it is a very simple point...Do you know how often publications are the butt of jokes of people with real jobs for having obvious results?

Yes, I see it often, people with real jobs, such as Rush Limbaugh, who has a stated philosophy posted on his web page that science is one of the four pillars of moral decay in America. I'm sure that all the scientists in the private sector that work for corporations in R&D departments give two hoots being the butt of jokes from science experts such as Rush Limbaugh, even given all his "obvious results".

 

But, I think even Rush would not agree with your radical position that "publishing no longer holds any value". Again, consider your use of words: "any", "value". You present an argument that the process of scientific publication does not have value, to anyone, which I do not agree with. A proper statement of your argument would be for you to say "publishing no longer holds any value for me". I think it is vital to hear all sides of any argument, but hearing and agreeing are two different matters. I find little in your philosophy, and that of Doctordick, about the value of publication that I agree with. The peer review process is not perfect, but it serves science well.

 

But, let us agree with you, that there is not any value to publish. Then, suppose you are that researcher that finds a cure for 75% of all known cancer cell growths next week. Using your logic, there is no value to try and publish the results to let others know about it, since it is possible that the stupid peer reviewers will not understand or agree with your claim, or, that it will be published only because the research was conducted by a person with a known low IQ and degree from a minority college.

 

So, let us look at the logical possibilities the cancer researcher faces.

 

1. If the research it is not published and it is a false claim, that would be an outcome with positive value (vis-a-vis publication).

 

2. If not published and a true claim, then an outcome with negative value.

 

3. If published and not true, that is also an outcome with positive value because it meant that other scientists could not replicate.

 

4. Finally, if published and found to be true by others, that is an outcome with the ultimate value to humans as a species.

 

Thus, of the four possible outcomes to attempt to publish, only one results in a negative outcome vis-a-vis the process of publication (peer review rejected, but a true claim), the other three result in positive outcomes of various degrees, with the ultimate value to humans being the outcome where one made an attempt to publish and the results of the claim were verified by other scientists. Of course, in this example, one could by-pass publication and move straight toward production of new drugs predicted by the research--but the problem is that this is not legal nor moral. Therefore, I would argue that the positive outcomes (value to humans) of attempting to publish far outweigh the negative, and it can never be a categorical philosophic position to hold that value does not exist. This is a false philosophic argument based on a false premise.

[Kriminal99]

Yes, I see it often, people with real jobs, such as Rush Limbaugh, who has a stated philosophy posted on his web page that science is one of the four pillars of moral decay in America. I'm sure that all the scientists in the private sector that work for corporations in R&D departments give two hoots being the butt of jokes from science experts such as Rush Limbaugh, even given all his "obvious results".

 

But, I think even Rush would not agree with your radical position that "publishing no longer holds any value". Again, consider your use of words: "any", "value". You present an argument that the process of scientific publication does not have value, to anyone, which I do not agree with. A proper statement of your argument would be for you to say "publishing no longer holds any value for me". I think it is vital to hear all sides of any argument, but hearing and agreeing are two different matters. I find little in your philosophy, and that of Doctordick, about the value of publication that I agree with. The peer review process is not perfect, but it serves science well.

 

But, let us agree with you, that there is not any value to publish. Then, suppose you are that researcher that finds a cure for 75% of all known cancer cell growths next week. Using your logic, there is no value to try and publish the results to let others know about it, since it is possible that the stupid peer reviewers will not understand or agree with your claim, or, that it will be published only because the research was conducted by a person with a known low IQ and degree from a minority college.

 

So, let us look at the logical possibilities the cancer researcher faces.

 

1. If the research it is not published and it is a false claim, that would be an outcome with positive value (vis-a-vis publication).

 

2. If not published and a true claim, then an outcome with negative value.

 

3. If published and not true, that is also an outcome with positive value because it meant that other scientists could not replicate.

 

4. Finally, if published and found to be true by others, that is an outcome with the ultimate value to humans as a species.

 

Thus, of the four possible outcomes to attempt to publish, only one results in a negative outcome vis-a-vis the process of publication (peer review rejected, but a true claim), the other three result in positive outcomes of various degrees, with the ultimate value to humans being the outcome where one made an attempt to publish and the results of the claim were verified by other scientists. Of course, in this example, one could by-pass publication and move straight toward production of new drugs predicted by the research--but the problem is that this is not legal nor moral. Therefore, I would argue that the positive outcomes (value to humans) of attempting to publish far outweigh the negative, and it can never be a categorical philosophic position to hold that value does not exist. This is a false philosophic argument based on a false premise.

 

Scientists in the private sector are not being paid to publish in most cases... And Rush who? Who cares who this guy is or what he has to say. The vast majority of the general population thinks academia is a joke thanks to the decisions we have made. It is no longer some kind of elite club for people who have unique insight into the world around them. It is a haven for losers who can't get real jobs. As the former and not the latter, I was annoyed by this perception until it became all to clear that it is actually true!

 

The most useful thing that people in the departments where I attended do is create free tools. This is respected by the academic community because it is doing work and not "being an arrogant know it all". It makes me sick that naive blue collar thinking like this has permeated academia. There are associated "publications" that go with making these free tools, even though a free tool really has nothing to do with contributing to the current level of understanding. This lets the low IQ foreign students get through the program even though they are stupid. Occasionally instead they do something like watch movies in a multi-million dollar MRI machine (without controlling for any important factors of course).

 

Half the time studies get through despite horrible sampling bias or over-generalization of results. These cause the biggest hits to the perception of academia. They say something utterly ridiculous based on a simple minded interpretation of some results that they got, and some complete layman has to explain why those results don't even remotely support the conclusion. Other times they just say something completely obvious through deductive reasoning and common experiences which is almost as bad.

 

So btw, just a little logic lesson here. Publishing itself may not have any value, whereas WHAT you publish could have a lot of value. Keep in mind that we are not talking about publishing as a medium of spreading an idea. By that reasoning, I am publishing something just by spamming it all over the internet. We are talking about publishing in terms of getting our paper approved for printing in some scientific journal.

 

Value is placed on getting publications, but any drueling moron can get a publication. I am not going to waste my time in CS making a free tool and calling it science just to get a publication when I could be working on Strong AI.