"while intelligence isn't knowledge, it can be rapidly converted into it."
For subjects with depth, this is wrong. And I think that's part of the reason why HN discussions of many subjects with some depth (politics, finance, economics, legal issues, and so on) often seem shallow. I'm not an expert in any of those areas, and maybe my judgement is wrong. But I am an expert in the physical sciences, and Matt's post looks pretty spot on as a diagnosis of what's wrong with some of the HN threads related to the physical sciences.
None of this is to say that HN isn't still a great forum. But it remains at its best on the subject of startups and (to a lesser extent) related technical subjects.
Absolutely. It's pretty infuriating when nerds completely dismiss advanced degrees as "meaningless credentials", yet in my experience they're far more apt to do this than the general population. Most people are deferential to experience and higher education, but nerds seem to actively reject the notion.
In particular, I love how commenters on HN will unhesitatingly dismiss any peer-reviewed, published scientific paper with a dismissive sneer, and the comment that "correlation doesn't equal causation," as if they were the only people on earth to whom this axiom had been communicated, and that the scientific establishment was completely unaware of statistics, untrained in even the most basic aspects of hypothesis testing.
I think generally those responses on HN are directed more at the sensationalist reporting by those journalists/bloggers who have even less expertise in the subject matter than your average Science/Engineering degree holder. This is completely justified when the article under discussion draws conclusions, citing a peer-reviewed, published scientific paper, that are simply not supported by the authors of the paper.
Obviously there are examples in the other direction as well, but I dont see it as a common problem on HN.
Also its worth noting, that the more difficult it is to grasp the subject matter of a paper, the less likely it is that peer reviewers are actually reviewing it any better than a common reader. Evidenced by the multitude of papers in the recent past that have been discredited as academically dishonest to fraud, and the hilarious meta-studies slipping computer generated gibberish through journal review processes.
"the more difficult it is to grasp the subject matter of a paper, the less likely it is that peer reviewers are actually reviewing it any better than a common reader."
Sorry, but no.
Papers are reviewed by researchers who are intimately familiar with the subject and techniques used in the paper under review. Journal editors don't give papers to people who are incapable of reviewing them. That would be dumb.
"...evidenced by the multitude of papers in the recent past that have been discredited as academically dishonest to fraud, and the hilarious meta-studies slipping computer generated gibberish through journal review processes."
You're exaggerating. Out of the thousands and thousands of peer-reviewed articles that are published each year, a small handful are later shown to be fraudulent. Overall, peer review has a pretty great track record.
I did not say that the reviewers were generally incapable of properly reviewing papers, I said that they are less likely to. While most have only the best intentions, those who are capable of subjecting research to proper scrutiny tend to be extremely busy with their own projects as well, especially considering the short time frame they often have for review. The default is to assume that if it passes the lowest threshold for academic rigour (slightly higher than the crackpot test), and conforms to certain practices which vary by field, it is publishable.
I was exaggerating, and for the most part respected journals are of high quality. That does not necessarily have anything to do with the review process. I tend to believe it has more to do with the character of those who choose to do such research (without other significant monetary motivations than the long-shot that what they're working on may produce marketable results).
Regardless, I would not suggest that the review process is not useful and necessary, as it is the best system we have, and works well for the most part given the dynamics of the system it exists in. I simply wanted to point out that it is very far from perfect or provably reliable (I'd argue most academically dishonest research slips through as not notable enough to warrant particular scrutiny anyway and fades into obscurity without question) and that it is vulnerable to gaming by sufficiently knowledgeable people.
Well, that got me off topic without even being the main thrust of my original post. Hit a nerve and started rambling. apologies if my comments came out more critical than I actually feel.
I wholeheartedly agree. Intelligence can only be rapidly converted into superficial knowledge. I've never heard of anyone who became an expert in Quantum Field Theory in a couple of years without having a background in Physics, that is for sure. I know people who became reasonably good programmers in a couple of years, though... but programming is more of a skill than true knowledge.
Hackers should focus on hacking and be more humble when treading on unknown territory, imho.
To get an idea of the amount of work required to gain "depth" consider these famous lists:
HOW to BECOME a GOOD THEORETICAL PHYSICIST
by Gerard 't Hooft
This is a web site (still under construction) for young students - and anyone else - who are (like me) thrilled by the challenges posed by real science, and who are - like me - determined to use their brains to discover new things about the physical world that we are living in. In short, it is for all those who decided to study theoretical physics, in their own time.
I knew Hooft's page already. Thanks for the other URL. I did some work on Experimental Physics years ago, then discovered that I was more into Applied Math. No plans to become a theoretical physicist, but I still read some stuff on it once in a while, just for kicks...
I'm not sure if the t'Hooft page is a joke or not. Looking over the Herring Box is a humbling experience. A common hope that a lot of children have is that even though there was no way that anyone could read every book in the library it might still be possible learn everything by choosing only the good books. The herring box makes me feel like even this goal is impossible. People really are discovering valuable knowledge at a faster rate than any one individual could learn and comprehend it all.
I've never heard of anyone who became an expert in Quantum Field Theory in a couple of years without having a background in Physics
An anecdote, FWIW ;)
Once Pierre Deligne, and few fellow mathematicians, annoyed at their utter lack of understanding of QFT and involved physics, decided to sit down for a year and learn some. Notes they've took during that year of effort are now a standard reference (http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Fields-Strings-Course-Mathemat...)
And it goes beyond intelligence. You can become passable at something fairly quickly, even competent. However becoming really proficient at most things takes years of work and effort.
I think the problem is with the varying interpretations of "rapidly"; going from little or no background to an expert in a field might be "rapidly" done in 10 years if most people take 20.
The problem (which I agree exists) arrives when people fail to realize that even extremely rapid conversion of intelligence to knowledge does not make you an expert in many fields without years of fairly dedicated study.
"Hacker News Disease" has been around since USENET. Computer folks think they can figure out anything they have "good documentation" for. While their experience with Python libraries bears this out, it really doesn't extend to other fields in depth. The result: lots of physicists, chemists, astronomers, and engineers of all stripes have cause to roll their eyes at us all the time!
Example: "What if we launched an orbital rocket from a balloon? Do the math, guy, what that saves you isn't worth the effort. You're not open to my ingenious new idea!"
Maybe yes, maybe no. There is a BIG difference between knowing enough to understand what someone is writing about in a given field and being able to work, especially doing original work, in that field.
For subjects with depth, this is wrong. And I think that's part of the reason why HN discussions of many subjects with some depth (politics, finance, economics, legal issues, and so on) often seem shallow. I'm not an expert in any of those areas, and maybe my judgement is wrong. But I am an expert in the physical sciences, and Matt's post looks pretty spot on as a diagnosis of what's wrong with some of the HN threads related to the physical sciences.
None of this is to say that HN isn't still a great forum. But it remains at its best on the subject of startups and (to a lesser extent) related technical subjects.