back to amateur science?

ben goertzel has some thoughts on how academic papers are stuffed with irrelevant filling, and how this impedes real progress:

what strikes me is how much pomp, circumstance and apparatus academia requires in order to frame even a very small and simple point. References to everything in the literature ever said on any vaguely related topic, detailed comparisons of your work to whatever it is the average journal referee is likely to find important — blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…. A point that I would more naturally get across in five pages of clear and simple text winds up being a thirty page paper!

I’m writing some books describing the Novamente AI system — one of them, 600 pages of text, was just submitted to a publisher. The other two, about 300 and 200 pages respectively, should be submitted later this year. Writing these books took a really long time but they are only semi-technical books, and they don’t follow all the rules of academic writing — for instance, the whole 600 page book has a reference list no longer than I’ve seen on many 50-page academic papers, which is because I only referenced the works I actually used in writing the book, rather than every relevant book or paper ever written. I estimate that to turn these books into academic papers would require me to write about 60 papers. To sculpt a paper out of text from the book would probably take me 2-7 days of writing work, depending on the particular case. So it would be at least a full year of work, probably two full years of work, to write publishable academic papers on the material in these books!

the lack of risk-taking is particularly evident in computer science:

Furthermore, if as a computer scientist you develop a new algorithm intended to solve real problems that you have identified as important for some purpose (say, AI), you will probably have trouble publishing this algorithm unless you spend time comparing it to other algorithms in terms of its performance on very easy “toy problems” that other researchers have used in their papers. Never mind if the performance of an algorithm on toy problems bears no resemblance to its performance on real problems. Solving a unique problem that no one has thought of before is much less impressive to academic referees than getting a 2% better solution to some standard “toy problem.” As a result, the whole computer science literature (and the academic AI literature in particular) is full of algorithms that are entirely useless except for their good performance on the simple “toy” test problems that are popular with journal referees….

his first scenario makes me wonder if amateur scientists could again make meaningful contributions to research, combined with a wiki-like process that (hopefully) would identify promising directions better than today’s peer reviews:

And so, those of us who want to advance knowledge rapidly are stuck in a bind. Either generate new knowledge quickly and don’t bother to ram it through the publication mill … or, generate new knowledge at the rate that’s acceptable in academia, and spend half your time wording things politically and looking up references and doing comparative analyzes rather than doing truly productive creative research.

origins of wrestling?

GLADIATORS’ combat had become a martial art by the beginning of the first millennium, according to a controversial theory based on reconstructing the fighters’ tactics from Roman artifacts and medieval fight books.

(via marginal revolution)
it would be interesting to pit the panem et circenses of those times against the ESPN of today. some starting points

security at microsoft

security is the new number one concern for microsoft.

the repercussions of this are still some time off, but the windows is insecure jokers will have to look elsewhere for amusement. security has so far been the domain of anal-retentive folks, and was not exactly hot.

maybe we can finally move away from crappy pointer-based languages? yeah, one can hope.