|
|
|
|
|
|
by throwaway-wroc
2105 days ago
|
|
|
oh i completely agree that a binary distinction between 'tools' and 'science' is not useful. it's also extremely hard to be a good scientist without being very good at 'tools'.
however, editors at peer-reviewed academic journals or people awarding degrees mainly need to ask whether the work has advanced our knowledge on X. if X is e.g. microbiology then it's fair to ask whether (1) some python library proposes something in terms of microbiology, and (2) bunch of biologists should make that decision. this is why refactoring code is mostly dismissed as 'doing science' by most phd supervisors. sure counts as 'developing skills', which certainly should feature prominently as part of your training, but it cannot be all there is to a project. |
|
|