I am glad to hear that (my house in Miami Beach faces the Bay's waters). On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have heard a variety of disagreements, both with that premise, and > with attempts at experiments. > > (Including, since you brought up climate change, an attempt (by a > reputable MIT graduate) to reproduce Hans Hug's data (funding for lab > costs was there, and interns to do the legwork were available, but > because there was a possibility that experimental results could > conflict with current climate change models, lab access was denied). > See http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/hug-barrett.htm and > http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm for writeups on what he was > trying to reproduce.) > > Anyways, yeah, it's easy to find people to disagree with almost anything. > > Nevertheless, there's actually been quite a bit of notice attracted to > this issue: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis > > https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid- > on-reproducibility-1.19970 > > So I guess I don't feel I need to place a lot of stock in people who > simply "disagree". Much better to show the relevant work, in my > opinion. (And, in some cases, the necessary work has been done. So > it's not like I'm asking for the impossible.) > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Jose Mario Quintana > <[email protected]> wrote: > > < One weakness of the academic publishing system has been that it never > > cared much about reproducible scientific results. Hopefully that > > > > I suspect some scientists (or "scientists" depending on one's point of > > view), for example, those working on Climate Change (Global Warming) and > > related matters, might disagree with the premise. > > > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:55 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> That's an interesting question... > >> > >> One weakness of the academic publishing system has been that it never > >> cared much about reproducible scientific results. Hopefully that > >> segment of academia can muster some way of supporting efforts to > >> support / refute such work. This will be difficult because of > >> communication issues - it's all too easy to refute something different > >> from the original. But, also, because of human social issues - people > >> do not like dealing with failures. > >> > >> But, also, not everything is science. > >> > >> So I expect things to fragment somewhat - there's the political > >> patronage side of things, the engineering practicality side of things, > >> the scientific reproducibility and extension work side of things, > >> there's the artistic merit side of things, there's the historical > >> perspectives side of things, there's the health benefit side of > >> things, there's the accounting verification side of things, and so > >> on... > >> > >> People who can tie into widespread support will tend to do well > >> regardless (think: football, for example). Others... well, I think > >> it's going to depend somewhat on the discipline. > >> > >> I don't think the peer review system is going to just go away, but I > >> think it's going to be seeing some different competition... > >> > >> Working code (github contributions, perhaps) might be one example of > >> this. But computerized platforms tend to come and go far more quickly > >> than the printed page. > >> > >> Mostly, I guess... anything involving people tends to need concerted > >> effort to deal with. > >> > >> This was probably not a useful answer. > >> > >> -- > >> Raul > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Ian Clark <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > I've given up writing for Vector. (That's a terrible thing to say for > >> > someone still loosely attached to the Vector committee.) > >> > > >> > Why write a letter on vellum with a quill pen when you can pick up the > >> > phone? > >> > > >> > Of course, if I still had an academic reputation to defend, funding > >> sources > >> > to keep sweet, administrators to browbeat, pretty students to wow, I'd > >> > think differently. My shelf full of journals would be like the > diploma on > >> > the wall. But the old systems are withering away. > >> > > >> > Yet academics continue to need accreditation, good peer-reviews, > >> > publications for their CV (in case they get hounded out of their > school). > >> > What's to replace the old systems? Facebook Likes? > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:00 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming < > >> > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> I asked for feedback on choosing one of 2 topics but received no > reply. > >> >> > >> >> From: Cliff Reiter <[email protected]> > >> >> To: [email protected] > >> >> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 10:54 AM > >> >> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] RV: JoJ 2018 > >> >> > >> >> Dear J forum, > >> >> Writing for the Journal of J or Vector is different from writing for > the > >> >> Jforums or Wiki. All those venues are a valuable resource for us who > >> >> work with J. I encourage us to supply all those forums with > material. I > >> >> submitted a paper to Vector a few months ago: > >> >> http://archive.vector.org.uk/art10501760 > >> >> and I noted that they too didn't have an issue in 2017. > >> >> > >> >> I plan to submit an article to JoJ in a month or so. I would rather > not > >> >> be the only article in an issue. Anyone else game to submit > notes/papers > >> >> to the journals most relevant to J? I would love to see our journals > >> >> have the some of the awesome energy that the forums have! > >> >> Best, Cliff > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On 1/15/2018 7:25 AM, mikel paternain wrote: > >> >> > Hi everybody > >> >> > > >> >> > We have not received any contributions to publish in 2017. > >> >> > > >> >> > JoJ was born to collect works on J. > >> >> > > >> >> > Send contributions to [email protected]<http:// > >> >> webmail.journalofj.com/imp/message.php?mailbox=INBOX. > Enviados&index=17# > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Thanks in advance > >> >> > > >> >> > JoJ > >> >> > > >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> ---------- > >> >> > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/ > >> forums.htm > >> >> > >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > >> >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/ > forums.htm > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > >> >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/ > forums.htm > >> >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > >> > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/ > forums.htm > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
