For theoretical computer scientists simulations are experimental indeed. Otherwise one just derives properties analytically / by formal proof.
-
-
I notice something perhaps related: that cogsci researchers often defend particular frameworks (Bayesian, connectionist, logic, heuristics, dynamicsl) and then oppose competing frameworks, rather than explore how they compare and in some cases even translate into each other.
-
Also, I think we can do better in terms of cummulative research, build on each others' theoretical ideas. Not just test / pit ideas again each other. The latter is useful, sure, but sometimes other approaches are useful.
-
Yes, I agree. I suppose it is a reflection of a partisan approach to science (to life for that matter), of fierce competition. Very few people choose collaboration, perhaps out of distrust, and it is one of the main problems in my opinion.
-
Agreed! Especially interdisc science needs team science. Together we can see further, but incentive structure is such that being 'in charge' or 'the first' or 'the most known' etc. is rewarded/selected for.
-
Yeap! I'm always for team work, I'm bossy but collaborative (or so I have been told) ;)
-
Same, I think :)
-
Absolutely this line. One should not need to come up with a whole new set of equations, and do one's own experiments, to publish - tweaking and validating other's theories in small ways enables progress.
-
Perhaps, interdisciplinary scientists like us should change strategies ;)pic.twitter.com/GerNq7N37B
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
L

