You can also go into the lab and try doing science yourself. It’s not as easy as it looks!
When I developed robotics and analysis software for chemists and biologists, I insisted on doing some wet experiments myself, to get a *felt sense* of what their needs were.
Statistician @betanalpha, consulting for malaria vaccine development project, dissected salivary glands of mosquitos under a microscope and counted the parasites, to make sure he understood what the data he was analyzing meant. #respect
1️⃣ Five years ago, I suggested systematically Sokaling all peer-reviewed journals. To “Sokal” is, hereby, to attempt to publish clearly bogus papers to illustrate the brokenness of the academic publication process.
2️⃣ Today @HPluckrose, @ConceptualJames & @peterboghossian reported on the first multiple-Sokaling. They were successful in publishing nonsense in top-ranked journals (which comes as no surprise, but is great to have verified).
3️⃣ I had in mind a more ambitious project. Pointing out that “grievance studies” fields are mostly nonsense is shooting fish in a barrel. We know that, for instance, “cognitive neuroscience” is also largely bollocks: biorxiv.org/content/early/…
1️⃣ Computer science recycles key philosophical terms with similar but different meanings. This causes systematic patterns of confusion for CS people thinking about philosophy.
2️⃣ “Representation” and “reference” are other major trouble sources. In CS, each is a relationship between perfectly crisp software things; elsewhere, at least one end of the relationship is nebulous, in the world.
BCS discusses in this:
3️⃣ Mathematical logic was invented to eliminate all nebulosity; it conclusively failed. But computers are logic made flesh; as a consolation prize, we got the whole contemporary world out of logicism’s failure.
Very roughly how many water molecules would you guess there are in a single cell? Within a couple of orders of magnitude?
I got it quite wrong.
I guessed off-hand “a billion” which I think was just my brain’s way of saying “wow, a really big number!”
But it’s WAY too small.
There’s a bunch of different numbers you can find on the web. Some of them are definitely way off. But there’s a wide range of values that seem reasonable (to me) because cells vary in size over several orders of magnitude.
A somewhat personal note about this. Some years ago I read that vitamin MK-4 supplements reduce osteoporosis fractures by 89%—an astonishing effect—and did some reading to see it was believable and if I & family should be taking. My notes from then below.
As soon as I read that Sato’s frauds were in the area of osteoporosis, I thought “oh god, that probably explains THAT” and googled before reading on. Why yes indeed. And then later in the article, this:
My area of professional expertise is about as far from osteoporosis as you can get, but the 89% number stuck out as incredible. Point is, most major scientific frauds are obvious to many people, including those with no special knowledge, for many years. But what can you do?
My boss—a biologist—told me to buy Oracle.
Me: What is Oracle, exactly?
Boss: It’s a database.
Me: Why do we want it?
Boss: We have data. We have to put it in a database.
Me: I don’t think so.
Boss: Our data is important. Don’t argue, just go buy it. It should cost $10,000.
1/2
I drive to Oracle HQ and ask to talk to someone who can tell me what it is.
Sales guy: So, how much of it do you want?
Me: What is it?
S: It’s Oracle. Everyone has to have it.
Me: But what does it do?
S, irritated: Look, how much do you want to buy?
2/n
Me: How much does what configuration cost? What do the different versions do?
Sales: You don’t seem to understand. Go ask your boss how much he wants.
Me: OK, so what would I get for $10,000?
Sales: Great! We’ll send you an invoice.