tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131794231697217573.post2914667870464262129..comments2021-04-27T06:35:50.192+02:00Comments on Häggström hävdar: Om matematiska meningslösheters märkliga attraktionskraftOlle Häggströmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07965864908005378943noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131794231697217573.post-90803793791293065662013-01-07T22:01:28.023+01:002013-01-07T22:01:28.023+01:00By the way, I have another comment. Before beating...By the way, I have another comment. Before beating up on the humanists, mathematicians should take a good look in the mirror. Let's assume the humanists do indeed rate work higher if it includes math, independent of the content of the latter. A follow-up question is to what extent this is due to (i) genuine gullibility (ii) a kind of conspiracy, where people know they're talking crap but it's part of a game they're expected to play. Indeed, the reason why quotes like that from Lacan above are so entertaining is because you can't help but think that (ii) is what's going on. Kimmo's work suggests, however, that (i) is a significant factor, because the participants in the study had no reason to give anything other than an honest opinion. Now, if social scientists use math to gain cred, then mathematicians use "applications" to do the same. Or at least, there is plenty of the same "anecdotal" evidence for this. However, there is plenty of the same "anecdotal" evidence in this case for (ii), indeed mathematicians are usually quite open to their colleagues about having to fill grant proposals with crap about applications, and joke about it. People are well aware it's a game. So what's worse ? Humanists being genuinely gullible or mathematicians committing conscious academic fraud as a matter of course ? Peter Hegartyhttp://www.math.chalmers.se/~hegartynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131794231697217573.post-31474560449844512742013-01-07T17:19:38.799+01:002013-01-07T17:19:38.799+01:00Kimmo's paper doesn't really make very ple...Kimmo's paper doesn't really make very pleasant reading for "mathematically trained researchers" either. It seems the nonsense sentence had a negative effect on their judgements but the effect was small, and Kimmo doesn't seem to regard it as statistically significant (Table 1 shows that 46% of the "math" people regarded the nonsense abstract higher). This result suggests that the "math" people could be just as gullible, but it's exposed in a different way here. In their case, it seems like what's going on is something like "well, this math bit doesn't really make sense to me, but the rest sounds ok, and anyway it's not my field, so I assume they know what they're talking about so I'll just ignore this nonsense bit". Indeed, this seems to reflect a much more fundamental problem with modern science, that it's become so specialised that most people are incapable of critically analysing anything outside a narrow field. This is a problem even within single disciplines like math. Maybe it would be interesting to do a follow-up study where you investigate how much garbage needs to be added to an abstract before the penny drops and even non-experts can see that something's wrong. Peter Hegartyhttp://www.math.chalmers.se/~hegartynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131794231697217573.post-77770140409669529272013-01-07T07:18:16.137+01:002013-01-07T07:18:16.137+01:00Wall Street Journal behandlar Kimmos studie.<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323374504578219873933502726.html" rel="nofollow">Wall Street Journal</a> behandlar Kimmos studie. Olle Häggströmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07965864908005378943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131794231697217573.post-6362618090799838042012-12-03T10:34:07.815+01:002012-12-03T10:34:07.815+01:00Aha, tack Martin!Aha, tack Martin!Olle Häggströmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07965864908005378943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131794231697217573.post-9275150492040616312012-12-03T10:28:43.007+01:002012-12-03T10:28:43.007+01:00När det gäller matematik och html, rekommenderar j...När det gäller matematik och html, rekommenderar jag Mathjax som tillåter användning av Tex/Latex i html-sidor. Fungerar alldeles utmärkt. http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/13865/how-to-use-latex-on-blogspot verkar ha instruktioner om hur man använder det i bloggar. Martin Berggrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09015025825598248479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131794231697217573.post-10914647020558931642012-12-03T08:38:44.457+01:002012-12-03T08:38:44.457+01:00Bra att du gjorde detta Kimmo och att du uppmärksa...Bra att du gjorde detta Kimmo och att du uppmärksammar det Olle!<br /><br />Men även om det ytligt sett uppfattas som mer "vetenskapligt", så blir det färre citeringar med mer matematik enligt en grupp i Bristol:<br />http://m.phys.org/news/2012-06-scientists-struggle-mathematical.html<br />TobyLundhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04338504472417328921noreply@blogger.com