btrettel comments on LessWrong 2.0 - Less Wrong

89 Post author: Vaniver 09 December 2015 06:59PM

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

Comments (312)

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

Comment author: Risto_Saarelma 09 January 2016 08:57:44AM *  1 point [-]

Yeah, I am sure enough about this not happening that I am willing to place bets. There is an enormous amount of intangibles Coursera can't give you (I agree it can be useful for a certain type of person for certain types of aims).

Agree that being inside academia is probably a lot bigger deal than people outside it really appreciate. We're about to see the first generation that grew up with a really ubiquitous internet come to grad school age though. Currently in addition to the assumption that generally clever people will want to go to university, we've treated it as obvious that the Nobel prize winning clever people will have an academic background. Which has been pretty much mandatory, since that used to be the only way you got to talk with other academicians and to access academic publications.

What I'm interested in now is whether in the next couple decades we're going to see a Grigori Perelman or Shinichi Mochizuki style extreme outlier produce some result that ends up widely acknowledged to be an equally big deal as what Perelman did, without ever having seen the inside of an university. You can read pretty much any textbook or article you want over an internet connection now, and it's probably not impossible to get professional mathematicians talking with you even when they have no idea who you are if it's evident from the start that you have some idea what their research is about. And an extreme outlier might be clever enough to figure things on their own, obsessive enough to keep working on them on their own for years, and somewhat eccentric so that they take a dim view on academia and decline to play along out of principle.

It'd basically be a fluke statistically, but it would put a brand new spin on the narrative about academia. Academia wouldn't be the obvious one source of higher learning anymore, it'd be the place where you go when you're pretty smart but not quite good and original enough to go it alone.

Comment author: EHeller 09 January 2016 08:51:06PM 2 points [-]

In STEM fields, there is a great deal of necessary knowledge that simply is not in journals or articles, and is carried forward as institutional knowledge passed around among grad students and professors.

Maybe someday someone clever will figure out how to disseminate that knowledge, but it simply isn't there yet.

Comment author: btrettel 10 January 2016 04:06:20AM 0 points [-]

Interesting point. Can you give an example of this knowledge?

I'm working on a PhD myself (in engineering), but the main things I feel I get from this are access to top scholars, mentoring, structure, and the chance to talk with others who are interested in learning more and research. One could also have access to difficult to obtain equipment in academia, but a large corporation could also provide such equipment. In principle I don't think these things are unique to academia.

Comment author: EHeller 10 January 2016 06:49:49AM 2 points [-]

Sure, not 100% unique to academia, there are also industrial research environments.

My phd was in physics, and there were lots of examples. Weird tricks for aligning optics benches, semi-classical models that gave good order of magnitude estimates despite a lack of rigour, which estimates from the literature were trust worthy (and which estimates were garbage). Biophysics labs and material science lab all sorts of rituals around sample and culture growth and preparation. Many were voodoo, but there were good reasons for a lot of them as well.

Even tricks for using equipment- such and such piece of equipment might need really good impedance matching at one connection, but you could get by being sloppy on other connections because of reasons A, B and C,etc.

A friend of mine in math was stuck trying to prove a lemma for several months when famous professor Y suggested to him that famous professor Z had probably proven it but never bothered to publish.

Comment author: ChristianKl 10 January 2016 12:59:30PM 1 point [-]

Jason Mitchell writes in "On the emptiness of failed replications" that there certain knowledge you need to replicate experiments that's not in the paper:

I have a particular cookbook that I love, and even though I follow the recipes as closely as I can, the food somehow never quite looks as good as it does in the photos. Does this mean that the recipes are deficient, perhaps even that the authors have misrepresented the quality of their food? Or could it be that there is more to great cooking than simply following a recipe? I do wish the authors would specify how many millimeters constitutes a “thinly” sliced onion, or the maximum torque allowed when “fluffing” rice, or even just the acceptable range in degrees Fahrenheit for “medium” heat. They don’t, because they assume that I share tacit knowledge of certain culinary conventions and techniques;

[...]

Likewise, there is more to being a successful experimenter than merely following what’s printed in a method section. Experimenters develop a sense, honed over many years, of how to use a method successfully. Much of this knowledge is implicit. Collecting meaningful neuroimaging data, for example, requires that participants remain near-motionless during scanning, and thus in my lab, we go through great lengths to encourage participants to keep still. We whine about how we will have spent a lot of money for nothing if they move, we plead with them not to sneeze or cough or wiggle their foot while in the scanner, and we deliver frequent pep talks and reminders throughout the session.

How best to give those pep talks would be an example.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 10 January 2016 06:08:40PM 2 points [-]

Yes I think even in math a lot of what is called "mathematical sophistication" is implicit knowledge that's hard to communicate without being steeped in the social context in which math is developed and read.

Comment author: btrettel 10 January 2016 08:18:44PM 0 points [-]

As an example, do you mean something like correctly understanding how to "abuse" mathematical notation in a way that remains rigorous?

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 10 January 2016 08:34:07PM *  4 points [-]

It's hard to explain, it's the way you think and talk about math, it's not about visible signs like notation.

I like the Scott Bakker analogy for magic, there is the visible part of math (formulas, etc.), and the corresponding mental habits. The visible part without the correct way of thinking behind the scenes doesn't work.

I guess one example is an ontology of "the type of math that's being done" in one's head, that lets people quickly figure out what the paper is trying to do after reading relatively little of it.

Comment author: Lumifer 11 January 2016 03:30:24PM 1 point [-]

even though I follow the recipes as closely as I can, the food somehow never quite looks as good as it does in the photos

The guy is profoundly misguided about the purpose of food X-D

And food photography is a specialized and lucrative field for a reason.