Is he right?
Is he right?
Brayden Phillips
Dylan Thomas
no
Brandon Morgan
No, research works, the problem is that a lot of people idealise it and get some kind of post-partum depression when they see the truth : A bunch of normal people doing a normal job following strict guidelines, and not a zoo where everyone gets to try his stupid idea and waste money.
Hunter Brown
He's right.
Plan to work for a company if you want a chance at doing something useful.
Wyatt Collins
>company
>research
l m a o
Asher Rivera
It's really the same, but companies usually do very applied researches.
Cameron Peterson
In some fields maybe. In some of the hotter fields, labs are so competitive and there's so many people in the game that people rush to publish with actually taking the time to do careful work.
If you want to do good science it's actually better to go to one of the slower, less well funded fields. People more often take their time and make sure their research is actually right before they publish.
Xavier Stewart
Here is more. Is he right?
Christopher Morris
>Useful
This is subjective, but you can be sure that industry will focus on monetising the research results
I disagree with this faggot
Academic research is incremental and iterative. Not every paper will be groundbreaking research, but as long as the standard is maintained, every bit of this research moves us forward.
I've done scientific research in both environments and it is pretty clear to me that academic research is more rigorous.
Samuel Lewis
That fag doesn't even know how to use punctuation properly.
Mason Diaz
yes.
except for a very few fields and even then restricted to a few depts, a lot of science is grant-fuelled confirmation bias in action i.e. "substance free ritualistic BS"
I've known a number of people who were rejected from journals bc they disproved earlier results by using new methods and they were effectively told to stop using those methods because they produced new results (mind you, not a single peer comment was about it being invalid, just incongruous with a half decade of calcified confirmation bias)
such is human dogma but this holds with just about anything, it's just more obvious in science where we are supposed to be "innovative" and "progressive"
Jace Morris
Please give any example.
If my publications were rejected but I know the principal and style were more than acceptable I would simply publish in a less reputable journal; SOMEONE would find the novel method's improvement to the methodology useful and would adopt it.
The only reason what youre saying happens is if the method itself is really hard to reproduce and verify firsthand and the entire study is essentially heresay, like dietary science or psychology.
Are you a dietician, user?
Jayden Nelson
Yes, most gainful research is done in industry. That being said, new techniques and ideas are usually discovered in academia. Most of these are incredibly niche' and won't see practical industrial applications, but related technologies might.
Gavin Turner
which field? i know its not math
John Perry
To some extent. Publication Bias has been found to be existing in social sciences.
Jaxson Wright
How about you try and read some of his books instead of his tweets? I've only read The Black Swan or whatever the title was and he went into much greater detail there.
Charles James
no, not math. Math people seem comparatively very accepting; don't mind research that is only marginally innovative OR really innovative; and just seem kinder in general.
Person I knew was researching language acquisition in toddlers, so cog sci/psych (where I've noticed reviews are often crueler, more personal, and less accepting of things that are outside of the reviewer's hobbyhorse much more often than in, say, math)
However, I've seen this a lot in neighboring fields too, neuro, AI/machine learning, speech recognition, etc.
Evan Hall
Industry invents or optimizes "thing" through, more often than not, massive amounts of trial and error and educated guesswork for the purpose of making money. Academia then figues out why "thing" works/is optimal through research.
Justin Clark
Hans Joachim Pabst von Ohain (14 December 1911 – 13 March 1998) was a German physicist, and designer of the first operational jet engine.[1] His first design ran in March 1937, and it was one of his engines that powered the world's first flyable all-jet aircraft, the prototype of the Heinkel He 178 (He 178 V1) in late August 1939.
>first operational jet engine
>physicist
Henry Walker
His twitter is good banter. Yes I should read his books.
Thomas Perry
What a surprise, a board full of flat earther morons has Taleb fanboys.
Austin Roberts
>implying private companies are any less strict with their money
>implying research companies don't have set goals and guidelines
Top fucking kek
found the pre grad student guys
Zachary Williams
That's definitely true when it comes to the humanities lol
Justin Sullivan
Company:
- Narrow field of research
- No freedom
- 'Minimum Viable Product' mentality
- Have to justify existence to business graduates on a daily basis
Sounds great
Isaiah Harris
this is true
Jacob Kelly
Thread
Gavin Martin
Yes, 99% of research is pure crap, and it's accepted by everyone, but it's all worth it for that 1% that is truly exceptional. There is no way to avoid that situation.
Connor Lee
Sources?
Angel Garcia
Jonathan Cruz
>Please give any example
Not that user, but James Enstrom is an example. He did a study on passive smoking and the university he worked for effectively fired him because he came to the conclusion it wasn't harmful. They fired him because he didn't reach the conclusion their ideology demanded.
Parker Sanchez
>Elon Musk
Lol.
Christopher Bennett
Ugh
Fuck off and die
So sick of your bullshit.
Dominic Moore
Veeky Forums - Race Science and Smoking
Hunter Rogers
Why? Because you don't agree with the findings?
Jaxson Allen
Academia:
- Narrow field of research
- No freedom
- 'Minimum Publishable Paper' mentality
- Have to justify existence to professors on a daily basis
- Pay is shit
- Funding is shit
- Professors are far less organized than even the most toxic company
- Very little chance for advancement.
Sounds fun.
Don't feed me your starving artist bullshit either: If it ain't worth money, it ain't worth my time
Jeremiah Martin
Technology created itself, wow.
Hudson Edwards
sounds like you either don't know shit, or you're very bad at research
Ryder Perry
>industrial revolution
>growth in knowledge, scientific revolution
>actually adventurers and hobbyists
um
William Baker
Sounds like you're a university boy who actually buys into the shit universities do regarding their """""groundbreaking""""" """""""""""""""""studies""""""""""""""""".
Jack Rodriguez
no. hes making a generalization. come on guys, we're on Veeky Forums. do generalizations ever hold water as an argument?
idk about the other fields, but when there is a breakthrough in chemistry (in academia) multiple startups form around that idea. this is most common in the pharma industry. they the take that idea and run, turning it into a product.
to say that academia is just worthless stamp collecting is retarded. sure there are a lot of professors who do just that, but they do it because they like it. not because they want to make a product. need i remind you this same argument was made towards Alexander Flemming when he was fucking around with mold and everyone thought he was wasting his time?
Jeremiah Nguyen
I don't buy into anything, I enjoy my research very much.
Sebastian Gray
>you
Lol.