|
|
|
|
|
|
by kovac
2003 days ago
|
|
|
General proposition may be true, but how can a math publication place the department interests in a negative light? Like "Doesn't matter how hard we try, there are always undecidable facts in our own system"? :p I still have faith in the research done by hard science research teams. |
|
|
With Math, the sensitive topic is utility. Math departments would tend to be upset by someone pushing papers that, say, call attention to the lack of social benefit relative to other fields of research that taxpayers could be funding instead.
I guess a researcher could also spin a narrative about mathematicians' contributions to cryptography, examining the negative consequences enabled by stuff like Bitcoin.
---
> I still have faith in the research done by hard science research teams.
That gets kinda complicated.
I mean, hard-science teams often rely on their expertise, as it's their unique source of value: if the area that they excel in is shown to be sub-optimal, admitting it would mean losing their current career path (and often taking a significant tumble down-the-ladder after transitioning).
So hard-science teams are often largely academically honest in what they do publish, though they're often biased toward casting what they do in a positive light.
For a common example, have you ever met an older computer tech who insists on using a legacy, obsoleted technology because it's what they know best? A lot of academics basically do the same thing.