Timeline for What should I do if a paper's theoretical justification isn't right, but the method based on that justification works?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 8, 2022 at 16:29 | comment | added | Michael Kay | I remember reviewing a paper about a database model for doing search and query on music. The problem was that the musicology was completely flawed, in fact it was essentially dreamt up in the researcher's head. But I was relying on my own extremely limited knowledge to recognise that. So the only thing I could really do was to tell the editors that the paper needed some expert musicological input. | |
| Sep 7, 2022 at 17:38 | comment | added | Krupip | For example, oten when we see this in climate change, since there's so many different disciplines working in the field, what actually happens is someone, working on something that will help reduce energy usage, or use clean energy, will say something about a prediction that was never said by an actual climate scientist or paper, and then climate change denialists will then go use that paper as a source for saying "See, obviously the world hasn't melted by 2020, so clearly all of this is bunk!" | |
| Sep 7, 2022 at 17:36 | comment | added | Krupip | I want to point out that it's not just misleading science, but it has effects outside of academia as well, as someone can then go point to this robotics paper and claim chimps are doing wheelies in the jungle, and they would have gained some ethos doing so. The fact they would have a paper, that may even have a bunch of people citing it makes it hard for the people on the ground to argue against things that are not just speculative, but flat out wrong. We see this all the time with climate change. | |
| Sep 7, 2022 at 13:02 | comment | added | tomasz | I've never personally encountered something like this (and it's pretty unlikely in my area), but I think it might make sense if the authors say that whatever algorithm they have is inspired by some biological phenomenon, even if there is no rigorous way to derive one from the other. This is of course very different from what OP seems to describe, which looks to me like bad, misleading science. | |
| Sep 6, 2022 at 19:12 | vote | accept | Michael Stachowsky | ||
| Sep 6, 2022 at 17:50 | history | answered | Bryan Krause♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |