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 <rauldmil...@gmail.com> 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
> <jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> 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 <rauldmil...@gmail.com>
> 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 <earthspo...@gmail.com>
> 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 <
> >> > programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I asked for feedback on choosing one of 2 topics but received no
> reply.
> >> >>
> >> >>       From: Cliff Reiter <reit...@lafayette.edu>
> >> >>  To: programm...@jsoftware.com
> >> >>  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 i...@journalofj.com<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

Reply via email to