This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
There are few jobs that don't have some amount of admin work associated with them. Generally you have to communicate about what you're doing with other people, and communication requires words.
Officially my job is to write code, but over half of an average day for me is spent writing emails and summaries and talking on the phone with people, because I need to talk about what I've been doing, what still needs to be done, and what the best way to get it done is.
Science can't progress if people just churn out experiments in silence and dump out big tables of numbers. If you want to say, argue that the balance of available evidence points towards dark matter theories instead of MOND, or if you want to argue that string theory is no longer a viable research program, then you need to use words. There's no way around it. Even if you do have someone who's silo'd away from the administrative processes as much as possible, they still need to communicate using words at some point.
Could you just put the content of your paper/argument in bullet point format and feed it into an LLM to clean it up and make it sound nice? That wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but it would depend heavily on the specifics of each individual case. Almost all of the actual content would have to already be present in the input you give to the LLM, which means you're still going to be writing a lot of words yourself. If the LLM does a non-trivial amount of thinking for you, then it raises questions of plagiarism and academic dishonesty.
I can't see how this is an actual problem.
It's hard to imagine a competent scientist who is somehow so bad at writing that he can't clear the bar for your typical academic science journal, because verbal ability is highly correlated with IQ in general.
As for "prolific", that seems like even less of an issue, because the limiting factor in how many journal articles a scientist can publish is definitely not the amount of time it takes to write the words.
More options
Context Copy link