Big respect to the McBriens of the world, your lit reviews make a lot of things easier
Academic Olympics
Submitted 1 year ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/371320f7-eeac-45c5-adc6-2fce77e9b284.jpeg
Comments
AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
lars@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
Pro- and anti-Chomsky’s Universal Grammar papers were flamewars and a touchstone of mine for a while.
(Everett convinced me Chomsky might be wrong).
jojo@beehaw.org 1 year ago
Not sure if you’re still into it, and if you knew this already, but I’m name-dropping “Constructive Grammars” as an interesting thing
mumblerfish@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I got a citation from a group once, in a footnote, which was just basically “we think the conclusions of [32] are wrong, but we will not comment on why”. 1., its because your conclusions were in conflict with ours, and 2. Well, OK then, I’ll do better in the future will all the constructive critisism you are providing!
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 year ago
To make it even worse, the academic field of these authors is linguistics.
FilthyShrooms@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Dud a whole review on human evolution and how it correlates to how birds, dolphins, and primates have developed the ability to use tools. There was one paper from the 90s that everyone seemed to be replying to, I got a lot of good info
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
But what actually happens is you do something you read in a paper, then you fail, get super frustrated, publish a paper titled “Doing X doesn’t lead to Y”, and several people suddenly start telling you they all knew that but never bothered to tell anyone.
BubbleMonkey@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
Normalize and incentivize publishing negative results!!
That’s like 3/4 - 7/8 of science, the being wrong part!
livus@mander.xyz 1 year ago
With these two recommendations we’d speed up discovery exponentially.