People shit on Hossenfelder but she has a point. Academia partially brought this on themselves.
Comment on [deleted]
BattleGrown@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I recently reviewed a paper, for a prestigious journal. Paper was clearly from the academic mill. It was horrible. They had a small experimental engine, and they wrote 10 papers about it. Results were all normalized and relative, key test conditions not even mentioned, all described in general terms… and I couldn’t even be sure if the authors were real (korean authors, names are all Park, Kim and Lee). I hate where we arrived in scientific publishing.
Comment105@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
zqps@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
People shit in Hossenfelder much more for her non-academic takes.
andros_rex@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Her video on trans issues has made it very difficult to take her seriously as a thinker. The same types of manipulative half truths and tropes I see from TERFs pretending they have the “reasonable” view, while also spreading the hysteric media narrative about the kids getting transed.
zqps@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
I didn’t even see that. Just a few clips of her rants about other things she confidently knows nothing about, like a less incoherent Jordan Peterson.
camilledockham@jlai.lu 4 weeks ago
She sucks when overextendeding her aura of expertise to domains she’s not good in (eg metaphysics and esp pan-psychism which she profoundly misunderstands yet self-assuredly talked about). Her criticism of academia is good, but she reproduces some of that nonsense herself.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 4 weeks ago
As someone who just looked at the Wikipedia article, I too am an expert in this field, unironically, because it’s woo woo nonsense.
camilledockham@jlai.lu 4 weeks ago
Can you explain how you reached that conclusion? Since you’re a rigorous thinker, no doubt it would be trivial for you.
Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 3 weeks ago
People shit on Hossenfelder but she has a point. Academia partially brought this on themselves.
Somehow I briefly got her and Pluckrose reversed in my mind, and was still kinda nodding along.
If you don’t know who I mean, Pluckrose and two others produced a bunch of hoax papers (likening themselves to the Sokal affair) of which 4 were published and 3 were accepted but hadn’t been published, 4 were told to revise and resubmit and one was under review at the point they were revealed. 9 were rejected, a bit less than half the total (which included both the papers on autoethnography). The idea was to float papers that were either absurd or kinda horrible like a study supporting reducing homophobia and transphobia in straight cis men by pegging them (was published in Sexuality & Culture) or one that was just a rewrite of a section of Mein Kampf as a feminist text (was accepted by Affilia but not yet published when the hoax was revealed).
My personal favorite of the accepted papers was “When the Joke Is on You: A Feminist Perspective on How Positionality Influences Satire” just because of how ballsy it is to spell out what you are doing so obviously in the title. It was accepted by Hypatia but hadn’t been published yet when the hoax was revealed.
hedgehogging_the_bed@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Hossenfelder is fine but tries to educate way outside her realm. Her cryptocurrency episode made me lose all respect for her.
GreatDong3000@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
Do you usually get to see the names of the authors you are reviewing papers of in a prestigious journal?
BattleGrown@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I try to avoid reviews, but the editor is a close friend of mine and i’m an expert of the topic. The manuscript was only missing the date
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 weeks ago
To be fait, scientific publishing has been terrible for years, a deeply flawed system at multiple levels. Maybe this is the push it needs to reevaluate itself into something better.
Tja@programming.dev 4 weeks ago
And to be even fairer, scientific reviewing hasn’t been better. Back in my PhD days, I got a paper rejected from a prestigious conference for being too simple and too complex from two different reviewers. The reviewer that argue “too simple” also gave a an example of a task that couldn’t be achieved which was clearly achievable.
Goes without saying, I’m not in academia anymore.
joonazan@discuss.tchncs.de 4 weeks ago
Startups on the other hand have people pursuing ideas that have been proven to not work. The better starups mostly just sell old innovations that do work.