JoshuaZ comments on How minimal is our intelligence? - Less Wrong

55 Post author: Douglas_Reay 25 November 2012 11:34PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (214)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Salemicus 24 November 2012 01:46:23AM *  1 point [-]

Consider honestly the societal gain from the marginal published paper, particularly given that it gets 0 cites from other papers not by the same author.

So, I'd be curious what evidence you have that the average paper gets 0 citations from papers not by the same author across a wide variety of fields.

Either I cannot write clearly or others cannot read clearly, because again and again in this thread people are responding to statements that are not what I wrote. The common factor is me, which makes me think it is my failure to write clearly, but then I look at the above. I referred to "the marginal published paper", and even italicised the word marginal. JoshuaZ replies by asking whether I have evidence for my statement about "the average paper." I don't know what else to say at this point.

However, yes, I have plenty of evidence that the marginal paper across a wide variety of fields gets 0 citations, see e.g. Albarran et al. Note incidentally that there are some fields where the average paper gets no citations!

Comment author: JoshuaZ 24 November 2012 01:50:44AM 1 point [-]

Sorry, in this context, I switched talking about the marginal to talking about the average. You shouldn't take my own poor thinking as a sign of anything, although in this context, it is possible that I was without thinking trying to steel man your argument, since when one is talking about completely eliminating academic funding, the average rate matters much more than the marginal rate. But the citation you've given is convincing that the marginal rate is generally quite low across a variety of fields.

Comment author: Salemicus 24 November 2012 11:47:52AM 0 points [-]

[I]t is possible that I was without thinking trying to steel man your argument, since when one is talking about completely eliminating academic funding...

Who exactly is arguing for completely eliminating academic funding? If you mean me, I hope you can provide a supporting quote.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 24 November 2012 02:33:08PM 1 point [-]

Who exactly is arguing for completely eliminating academic funding?

Well, various statements you've made seemed to imply that, such as your claim that burning down the Library of Alexandria had the advantage that:

Academics now forced to get useful job and contribute to society

and you then stated

The point is that some academics are useful and some are not; there is no market process that forces them to be so. It may be that some of the academics are able to continue doing exactly what they were doing, just for a private employer.

If you prefer, to be explicit, you seem to be arguing that all goverment funding of academics should be cut. Is that an accurate assessment? In that context, given that that's the vast majority of academic research, the relevant difference is still the average not the marginal rate of return.