"Garbage in, garbage out" - Is it rude to call others' works as 'garbage' compared to ours?

Question

I'm working on a data model which, I think, produces more accurate and valid results than some of previous works by others, including my supervisor, who by the way supports my work. But so far, the relevant community in general hasn't paid enough attention to the need for such more accurate results in this field.

When presenting my work (verbal/poster/paper), I need to emphasise the importance of the problem and the need to using better models, and that if we used less valid models (such as some of the existing ones) we should expect less accurate results.

Is it rude to use the computer science axiom "garbage in, garbage out" (or similar phrases) when referring to others' works in this context?

Edit: I missed important details. In my case, by 'garbage' I specifically mean the low-quality data usually used to solve the problem, which makes other models less valid. Even though, I would never use it as it might be misinterpreted as evaluation of the works per se, rather than the resources used!

But I was surprised and not comfortable to read the analogy in a published comment which criticised another author's results for using unreliable data!

Answer 1

Yes, it's rude to describe somebody else's work as garbage, and unnecessarily so. You've already said it much better yourself:

if we used less valid models we should expect less accurate results

There's no reason to confuse this simple factual statement with a value judgement. Just because something works poorly doesn't mean it's garbage---it may also simply be earlier and less well engineered. Would you call a Model T "garbage" just because it gives inferior performance compared to a current car?

Answer 2

Not only would this be rude, but also downright wrong. Science proceeds by successive approximation producing better and better models. But when we find a better approximation, we don't start calling all the previous models "garbage", for at least two reasons:

1. Out of respect, because we know that we wouldn't have found this new model without all the previous ones. And should someone else find a better model than the one devised by us, we wouldn't like to hear our work called garbage.
2. A new and better model does not necessarily remove all the previous models, because the domain of applicability may not completely overlap.

Therefore, highlight the qualities of your work, but don't be rude about the work of those who came before you.

Answer 3

I think the thing here is that you're conflating the invalid input/invalid output of garbage in garbage out with, well, less accurate models being replaced by more accurate models, which is ENTIRELY a different thing. If you put garbage data in to your model, you would get garbage results out of your model. This does not change no matter how sophisticated the model is.

In short, no, from both a CS standpoint - your model would have the same problem as any other model, or indeed any piece of code, taking invalid input -, and, as others have said, a propriety standpoint, in that you really shouldn't be insulting everyone else's work.

E: Perhaps another way to put this. You're confusing the input with the actual calculations and modeling. If someone input that same guy's data in to your model, it would be equally as shaky in the reliability of the calculations. Accuracy of calculations is another matter entirely.

Another note: I am approaching this solely from a programmer's viewpoint, but the points about not insulting other people are all very good reasons to not use GIGO in your presentation.

E2:Okay, I seem to be serial-editing as I think of stuff.

As regards your edit ("missed important details..."):

I don't get what you're saying there.

Are you saying that you're pushing for more accurate input? Or are you saying something else? Your question and your clarification are at odds.

Answer 4

I'm going to disagree with some of the other opinions here.

GIGO is a recognized term in the industry. Using it appropriately is, well, appropriate, even if people in other industries wouldn't recognize the term as a very common, and appropriately used, term.

Also, in the real business world, people poke fun at competition in advertisements. I've certainly seen it done before. A lot of academia is designed to prepare you for the business world.

You may brush on some sensitivities, and perhaps even offend some people, while other people may chuckle. In short, your level of success may depend on how well you know your audience. What works well for computer programmers might not work as well for an audience that doesn't recognize the jargon and places a lot of value on things like showing respect for others.

However, even if your audience could appreciate a GIGO reference, you must make sure you're using the term right. As a computer programmer myself, I am familiar with the phrase. "Garbage", in this case, doesn't usually mean "low quality data". It means "wrong data", or "random data that could be wrong, and there is a high probability of (at least some data being) wrong". "Low quality" doesn't really fit that technical description of "garbage". Any craftiness points you might deserve would be offset by the inappropriateness of your simple wrongness.

Answer 5

You initially began by talking about models, but in your update it seems you're really talking about collected data. I'm still a bit unclear.

But it seems that you're grappling with uncertainty in different data sets, so I propose that instead of using the computer science term GIGO, you use a signal processing term: noise. All data is noisy, your new techniques give you a less noisy dataset and therefore allow more accurate predictions.

Answer 6

The golden rule "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (and the various equivalent statements that appear in a variety of ethical codes) applies just as much to academia as elsewhere. Ask yourself, would I consider it rude if someone (1) referred to my work as "garbage" in the context of GIGO? If the answer is "yes, probably", that suggests it would also be rude for you to use it to refer to the work of others.

I suppose technically that still leaves the question as to whether it is acceptable to be rude to others in an academic paper! ;o)

(1) They say "familiarity breeds contempt", and nobody is more familiar with my research than I am, but there is a difference between being contemptuous of my own work and having somebody else do it for me!

Answer 7

It actually depends on if they understand that their work wasn't good enough or look for a better pharse like 'what you put in is what you get out'

Answer 8

Yes, it is conditionlessly rude. Other answers explain very well, how bad is if you communicate negatively in a hierarchy. I extend this from the other site:

Although it is rude, it can be justifiable. Sometimes people do garbage, it can have many reasons, many of them is tolerable, many of them isn't.

And, naming the things as they are, makes the situation much clear if the reality is masked by complex polite formulas.

It depends on the balance. But, don't forget: people around you will weigh the real hardness of your negative words probably more serious, as you intended it!