Also this week: the last word (?) on the Notre Dame fire vs. environmentalism, AI vs. Darwin, the problem with a new study of academic productivity and institutional prestige, and more.
Andrew Hendry on how basic research on rapid evolution ended up being policy-relevant.
Manu Saunders with the last word on the Notre Dame fire vs. environmentalism (and the Met Gala vs. the IPBES global assessment).
Congratulations to Jim Elser, Nancy Grimm, Paul Turner, and Marlene Zuk on election to the US National Academy of Sciences, and to Marten Scheffer on election as a foreign associate.
Here’s a synopsis of a very interesting-looking new philosophy of science paper that just came out in Systematic Biology. Tries to actually measure which competing alternative hypotheses lead to productive research programs, and which just lead to wheel-spinning. Even if you don’t think of this approach as actually measuring scientific progress in Lakatos’ sense, it seems like a good way to structure a historical review of research on any topic. Needs better graphs, tho.
That new PNAS study of academic productivity and institutional prestige (which I’ve yet to read, BTW) has a serious technical flaw.
Here’s an online neural network that tries to complete snippets of text provided to it. I entertained myself for a few minutes asking it to complete famous passages from Darwin. The results were the AI equivalent of a dog walking on its hind legs.
See, this is why you should always read the footnotes. 🙂 (ht @dandrezner)