Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Dee Roytenberg
Dee's interests
View all
Dee's posts

Post has shared content
TIL that Trofim Lysenko still has a loyal following, and they are not giving up the fight. (a Lysenkoism apology site, mostly in Russian)

Post has shared content
No pity to the enemies of science!

Post has shared content
I think every field of studies could use a Journal of Negative Results in [that field]. The mathematical version should run a special "Big Problems" series.

On reproducibility: missing among the fixes is giving the original researchers additional kudos every time their research is replicated. That will have them bending over backwards to be as transparent as they can about their methodology, without any need to impose transparency standards by fiat.
The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists

"Likewise, Cambridge mathematician Tim Gowers argues that researchers should get recognition for advancing science broadly through informal idea sharing — rather than only getting credit for what they publish.

We’ve gotten used to working away in private and then producing a sort of polished document in the form of a journal article," Gowers said. "This tends to hide a lot of the thought process that went into making the discoveries. I'd like attitudes to change so people focus less on the race to be first to prove a particular theorem, or in science to make a particular discovery, and more on other ways of contributing to the furthering of the subject."

Post has shared content
To close, I’d like to return to the human case. Many years ago, after I gave a lecture that featured your chicken experiments, a woman rushed up to me and said, “That first experiment describes my department! I have names for those three hens!”
Muir’s experiments and the social effects of naive eugenics

"Muir’s experiments reveal a tremendous naiveté in the idea that creating a good society is merely a matter of selecting the “best” individuals. A good society requires members working together to create what cannot be produced alone, or at least to refrain from exploiting each other. Human societies approach this ideal to varying degrees, but there is always an element of unfairness that results in some profiting at the expense of others. If these individuals are allowed to breed, and if their profiteering ways are heritable, then selecting the “best” individuals will cause a cooperative society to collapse. It’s a good thing that the early eugenicists did not have their way!"

Post has attachment

Will Joachim Löw invoke his right to be forgotten now?

Post has attachment

Post has shared content
It's remarkable that robots get a free pass in situations that would get a human in serious trouble. It's as though we were all secretly utilitarian but determined never to admit it to our fellow humans.

Also, I just have to quote the following comment on the original article in its entirety (emphasis mine):

Who gets to decide what is right and wrong? It seems to me, that the society of United States of America has lost their way as to what is right and wrong. I certainly wouldn't want them imposing their value system on my robot. Men marrying men, killing babies, allowing men to use public showers with little girls, rampant drug use, ignoring immigration laws, etc. Hopefully a robot would adhere to truly what is right and wrong as defined by our grandparents.
How to Build a Moral Robot

If robots are going to drive our cars and play with our kids, we’ll need to teach them right from wrong

Post has shared content
Grisha Perelman, Edward Snowden and Alexandra Elbakyan. Guess what the three of them have in common. (Hint: it's two words and an exclamation point.)
Let us read what we paid for

Imagine a business like this: you get highly trained experts to give you their research for free... and then you sell it back to them.  Of course these experts need equipment, and they need to earn a living... so you get taxpayers to foot the bill.  

And if the taxpayers want to actually read the papers they paid for?   Then you charge them a big fee!

It's not surprising that with this business model, big publishers are getting rich while libraries go broke.  Reed-Elsevier has a 37% profit margin!

But people are starting to fight back — from governments to energetic students like ‎Alexandra Elbakyan here.

On Friday, the Competitiveness Council —a gathering of European ministers of science, innovation, trade, and industry—said that all publicly funded scientific papers published in Europe should be made free to access by 2020

This will start a big fight, and it may take longer than 2020.   But Alexandra Elbakyan isn't waiting around.

In 2011, as a computer science grad student in Kazakhstan, she got sick of paying big fees to read science papers.  She set up SciHub, a pirate website that steals papers from the publishers and sets them free.

SciHub now has 51,000,000 papers in its database.  In October 2015, Elsevier sued them.  In November, their domain name was shut down.  But they popped up somewhere else.  By February, people were downloading 200,000 papers per day.   Even scientists with paid access to the publisher's databases are starting to use SciHub, because it's easier to use.

Clearly piracy is the not the ultimate solution. Elbakyan now lives in an undisclosed location, to avoid being extradited.  But she gave the world a much-needed kick in the butt.   The old business model of get smart people to work for free and sell the product back to them is on its way out.

For more, read:

John Bohannon, Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone, Science, 28 April 2016,

and especially the SciHub Twitter feed:

Also read this:

Martin Enserink, In dramatic statement, European leaders call for ‘immediate’ open access to all scientific papers by 2020, Science,
27 May 2016,

The Dutch government is really pushing this!  Congratulations to them!


Post has attachment
Wait while more posts are being loaded