Re: [tlug] Open Access Journals

[Attila Kinali <attila@example.com>]

On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:54:03 +0900
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com> wrote:

> Stephen J. Turnbull writes:
>  > Attila Kinali writes:
> 
>  >  > Hmm? How is [Waldrop's /Complexity/] interesting? Beside
>  >  > mentioning of the Santa Fe Institute it does not say anything
>  >  > about how research is done or how it is paid for.
>  > 
>  > Reread it! :-)
> 
> I have a bit more time now, let me expand.  It is true that the book
> is not really about complexity at all, it's a history of the Santa Fe
> Institute.  However, there are two relevant aspects.  First, it *does*
> discuss the difficulty of getting funding for research that existing
> expertise can't evaluate -- specifically in this case the
> interdisciplinary field of "complexity theory".  These issues take
> center stage in at least one whole chapter, and several other extended
> passages.
> 
> Second, it *does* discuss the corresponding difficulty that field
> experts have as soon as you get *near* the boundary of their field
> (ie, interdisciplinary research).  That's most of the rest of the book
> -- the discussion of actual complexity theory is mostly scaffolding so
> the reader can grasp why such important research could be ignored for
> so long.

For me, the whole issue of not getting the field defined and getting
people from various field to work together didn't seem such an outlandish
thing. I don't know how it was in other countries, but the (AFAIK) 80s and
90s were all about interdisciplinary work in switzerland. By the time i
entered university, if you weren't doing something interdisciplinary, you
weren't doing important research in the eye of the general population
(and also politics). During that time the difficulties of conducting
interdisciplinary work were also discussed quite a bit, ie I was well
aware that working beyond the borders of your own field doesn't come
naturally and requires a lot of effort. That's why that part of the story
didn't register much.

 
> Finally, the field of complexity theory today is rife with complete
> bullshit, which gets published in excellent places on occasion (I have
> an incoming colleague whose prize possession is an acceptance letter
> from Physics Reviews -- the paper, while relating an amusing anecdote
> which is not bullshit, is hardly valid science IMHO).  This issue is
> even mentioned obliquely in the book at the end, although the book
> doesn't put it in terms of "rife" and "complete bullshit". :-)
> Rather, it points to the problem of "creating appropriate standards of
> rigor" in the field.

Eh.. Name me a field and i can pull up a dozen papers containing nothing
but bullshit from that field. Even hard sciences and engineering contains
lot of stuff that should never have been published. Soft sciences like
computer science, social sciences (or anything that contains the word
"science" in it), and anything else that is hard to measure and quantify
is much more prone to bullshit. I'm not exactly sure where this comes from,
but i hold the requirement to publish at least partialy responsible for this.

I am not surprised that complexity, as something that most people do not
even have an idea what it means, is full of it.


			Attila Kinali
-- 
I pity people who can't find laughter or at least some bit of amusement in
the little doings of the day. I believe I could find something ridiculous
even in the saddest moment, if necessary. It has nothing to do with being
superficial. It's a matter of joy in life.
			-- Sophie Scholl