Comments for Monday Begins on Saturday

Comment on Socio-technological evolution and the emergence of multiconsciousness by Yaroslav Nikolaev

Yaroslav Nikolaev — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:17:03 +0000

your thought is exactly on the point! open system would be more capable of developing emergent adaptations by increased amount of “random changes”

Comment on Socio-technological evolution and the emergence of multiconsciousness by James McIntyre

James McIntyre — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 07:48:13 +0000

Awesome! I was just in the tub (after a roommate and I had a discussion about evolution) when I thought “what does biological evolution and open source have in common?… emergence?”

so i googled “open source evolution emergence” and here was your article…

one thought (rough thought!):
open=more “useful” emergent behavior via what we perceive as “randomness” or “shuffling”

Comment on Knowledge production pipeline by Yaroslav Nikolaev

Yaroslav Nikolaev — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:35:42 +0000

The raw data obviously does not form spontaneously – researchers have to somehow extract it first. Apologies for the confusion, but in the scheme above “raw data” refers to natural world/universe around us, rather than digital data in the raw format.
As you mention, the system is indeed a circle – produced knowledge feeds back to the pipeline (see the dissemination step)…However it is a bit more convenient to illustrate the process as a [linear] sequence of segments in the context of current discussion

Comment on Knowledge production pipeline by Andrei Karotki

Andrei Karotki — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:54:04 +0000

Ciao Jareg. I have a question about your “Knowledge production pipeline”. It is not about the main idea of the article but about the processing of data by scientists. Do you really exclude all the conscious data production outside of your pipeline from the model? I mean, the raw data can come spontaneously, but it can also be a result of a planned action which is based on our previous knowledge , forming a knowlegde multiplication circle. In fact it is an open system, that does not have a linear mechanism of data processing. What do you think?

Comment on Knowledge production pipeline by Michael Nielsen » Biweekly links for 06/27/2008

Michael Nielsen » Biweekly links for 06/27/2008 — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:54:24 +0000

[...] Knowledge production pipeline « Monday Begins on Saturday [...]

Comment on Knowledge production pipeline by Yaroslav Nikolaev

Yaroslav Nikolaev — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:43:43 +0000

Totally on your side – peer-review is required to certify research, not data. And anyway one does not need to “peer-review” the raw data, since only specialists from the same field can truly value from sharing this kind of information (plus data-mining later on). But this could be the key for automation – let the system find most appropriate peer-reviewers for your research, thus providing the highest quality/timing ratio for the peer-review process.

Comment on Knowledge production pipeline by Jean-Claude Bradley

Jean-Claude Bradley — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:58:56 +0000

Not all peers are equal – the scientist you want reviewing work is the one who tried to duplicate it (or ran a very similar experiment). Nobody else is really motivated enough to contribute a meaningful review. That means that if we start making research results available as we get them it is not practical to expect them to be properly reviewed. This is why I think that raw data is much more important that perfunctory “peer review” – especially for “failed” experiments.

Peer review does have a role in publishing traditional articles but it happens at a much higher level of analysis than the raw experimental results.

Comment on Mitigation of the crisis in science by electronic discovery

electronic discovery — Sat, 31 May 2008 23:08:17 +0000

[...] push students away from scientific careers. It might sound presumptuous, but in my opinion polihttp://yarikson.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/mitigation-of-the-crisis-in-science/Top Dallas Attorneys Join Forces to Establish New Firm, Spencer Crain Cubbage Healy & McNamara PLLC [...]

Comment on Mitigation of the crisis in science by Yaroslav Nikolaev

Yaroslav Nikolaev — Tue, 06 May 2008 13:05:36 +0000

Apologies for my stubbornness but in my view what you are pointing to is more of a “how-to-do”, than “what-to-do” issue..

Lets say departments keep the budget of their long term positions fixed, but change the “per tenure” investments, thus increasing the number of tenure positions?! Given that most of researchers stay in academy more of inspiration and enthusiasm, than of (financial) value of a professor position, this shall not seriously affect the quality of specialists on the tenure track..

Stable positions offered within global funding frameworks, like NIH, might bring even more benefit to the concept – specialists would be able to change their affiliations once in a while, thus increasing efficiency of expertise dissemination..

The main problem, imho, is to devise a smart evaluation/crediting model allowing to eliminate existing “manual” peer-reviewing efforts…something like a new type of metric you have pointed to at your blog

This is absolutely essential, especially if we want to see an increase in amount of independent grants & positions..Provided sufficient automation of this evaluation process, one would also relief professors from spending lots of their time fighting for money and suffering from Cell_Nature_Science disease..which also might help reviving science and education.

Comment on Mitigation of the crisis in science by Cameron Neylon

Cameron Neylon — Mon, 05 May 2008 14:38:02 +0000

The problem with creating more stable positions is that the issues in research funding means that departments can’t afford to commit to providing long term positions. Key issue is that employer funding is generally running in a different stream to the research funding yet the two are intimately tied. Less tail wagging dog and more a case of the dog having four hind legs