As a fellow academic, it seems to me like Tai wasn't really claiming to have reinvented the wheel here (or maybe I should say the area under the wheel). It looks to me like she took what my psychologist friends call the "Least Publishable Unit" (LPU) too much to heart. She claims, in the response, that she was asked to publish it by some colleagues so that they could cite her in a paper of their own; it's unclear to me why they would need to cite such a thing, but most likely it was just the typical explanation - where you cite your friends at any possible opportunity, even when they recapitulate Isaac Newton ;)
Granted, I think it's a weak rationale, but I suspect it's not so much that no one involved knew calculus; it's more that they wanted to drum up more citations for people inside their field rather than outside. In fact, I see that even the people who wrote in to protest managed to rack up 7 citations.
Beyond being a feel-good piece for math-inclined folks to finally have one to hold over those arrogant doctors, this basically reveals all the worst parts of credit distribution in academia. Until "knowledge" can be quantified and catalogued in an exhaustive database such that new contributions can be evaluated instantly for novelty, this kind of thing will occur because there are lots of inter-academic communication barriers to intermediate.
Also, the context of citations is important and isn't quantified by anyone. My guess would be that this paper has been cited more as a cautionary tale than in actual practice, and those two citations should not be treated equally.
Academia is just one of those ancient industries that is tough to crack because of how traditional it is. I just know there's some hungry entrepreneurs waiting to pounce on the idea of a "Modern Peer Review Journal" startup, but you will not be 'disrupting' this industry anytime soon I'm afraid.
Just by the way Tai's Method was invented in 1994. Nothing has changed since then in terms of peer-review credibility or reliability. You will need to be a genius or a miracle worker to change up academia.
>"I just know there's some hungry entrepreneurs waiting to pounce on the idea of a "Modern Peer Review Journal" startup, but you will not be 'disrupting' this industry anytime soon I'm afraid."
At some point (if not already), the limiting factor in discovery of new knowledge is going to be the time required to search previous knowledge (both for relevant inspiration and to avoid duplication).
We're already past the point where one can "just read" to stay abreast of a field.
In Tai's Model, the total area under a curve is computed by dividing the area under the curve between two designated values on the X-axis (abscissas) into small segments (rectangles and triangles) whose areas can be accurately calculated from their respective geometrical formulas. The total sum of these individual areas thus represents the total area under the curve. Validity of the model is established by comparing total areas obtained from this model to these same areas obtained from graphic method Gess than ±0.4%). Other formulas widely applied by researchers under- or overestimated total area under a metabolic curve by a great margin.
She rediscovered part of a first semester calculus course and named it after herself, then had it published, and literally nobody stopped this from getting into a medical journal.
> Sorry, I'm not very smart or something, I don't get why it's hilarious, can you explain?
You learn this theory (you find the area under a curve by adding up the boxes under a a curve) in your first semmester of calculus and is the basis for the integration which is a huge focus for the next two symmesters of calculus. (And that's only what I have taken.)
The trapizoidal rule that she "comes up with" (something you learn in Calculus 2) is acctually not even the most accurate way to estimate the area under a curve. Simpsons rule is more accurate.
It's hilarious because any engineer would instantly know to use these rules since you learn them freshman year of undergrad. This medical student redefined very commonly know theroms around those who use calculus more.
DISCLAIMER: I am only a Junior CS student who did well in Calculus. Anyone more experienced, please feel free to correct me.
Someone pointed out that most of them probably cited as a joke, like in the legal field where they cite ridiculous lawsuit names ("The United States of America vs Satan")
For whatever it's worth, physicists aren't necessarily up on everything written by the medical community. Take for example, these letters to Diabetes Care written in 1994 criticizing Tai's article soon after it was published:
This is similar to founders/creators getting kicked out when mass marketing kicks in - who generated the wealth?
In terms of human good, unfortunately it's the latter.
And if the definition of the Scientific Method includes sharing with a community. If so, you cannot do science alone. But how big does the community need to be? Does sharing it with one other person enough? A small community? A large community? Everyone?
I think, if we're going to include sharing, it has to be with all humanity (broadly, to include other imtelligences). Wartime science isn't science.
This is sad because it shows that general enducation standards have dropped dramatically across the board given that this sort of stuff really should be (and used to be) known by every high school student..
I could see some new authors being overly cautious with "cite everything" guidelines - since you can't exactly cite your high school maths lesson, maybe it's the most easily findable paper to explain integration?
What country or state are you guys in? We've never touched on calculus in Pennsylvania high schools. The advanced math courses focused on trigonometry.
If you go to Google Scholar and search "Tai's model," you can find that this from 1994:
"Tai's formula is the trapezoidal rule"
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/17/10/1224.short
As well as Tai's response: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/17/10/1225.2.short
As a fellow academic, it seems to me like Tai wasn't really claiming to have reinvented the wheel here (or maybe I should say the area under the wheel). It looks to me like she took what my psychologist friends call the "Least Publishable Unit" (LPU) too much to heart. She claims, in the response, that she was asked to publish it by some colleagues so that they could cite her in a paper of their own; it's unclear to me why they would need to cite such a thing, but most likely it was just the typical explanation - where you cite your friends at any possible opportunity, even when they recapitulate Isaac Newton ;)
Granted, I think it's a weak rationale, but I suspect it's not so much that no one involved knew calculus; it's more that they wanted to drum up more citations for people inside their field rather than outside. In fact, I see that even the people who wrote in to protest managed to rack up 7 citations.
Beyond being a feel-good piece for math-inclined folks to finally have one to hold over those arrogant doctors, this basically reveals all the worst parts of credit distribution in academia. Until "knowledge" can be quantified and catalogued in an exhaustive database such that new contributions can be evaluated instantly for novelty, this kind of thing will occur because there are lots of inter-academic communication barriers to intermediate.
Also, the context of citations is important and isn't quantified by anyone. My guess would be that this paper has been cited more as a cautionary tale than in actual practice, and those two citations should not be treated equally.
Academia is just one of those ancient industries that is tough to crack because of how traditional it is. I just know there's some hungry entrepreneurs waiting to pounce on the idea of a "Modern Peer Review Journal" startup, but you will not be 'disrupting' this industry anytime soon I'm afraid.
Just by the way Tai's Method was invented in 1994. Nothing has changed since then in terms of peer-review credibility or reliability. You will need to be a genius or a miracle worker to change up academia.
>"I just know there's some hungry entrepreneurs waiting to pounce on the idea of a "Modern Peer Review Journal" startup, but you will not be 'disrupting' this industry anytime soon I'm afraid."
What would they add beyond sci-hub?
4 replies →
This is basic high school pre-calculus.
EDIT: Er, calculus rather. Still not far removed from high school and should be a college course required for being a researcher.
Here here!
At some point (if not already), the limiting factor in discovery of new knowledge is going to be the time required to search previous knowledge (both for relevant inspiration and to avoid duplication).
We're already past the point where one can "just read" to stay abreast of a field.
FWIW. http://grammarist.com/spelling/hear-hear/
From the paper:
In Tai's Model, the total area under a curve is computed by dividing the area under the curve between two designated values on the X-axis (abscissas) into small segments (rectangles and triangles) whose areas can be accurately calculated from their respective geometrical formulas. The total sum of these individual areas thus represents the total area under the curve. Validity of the model is established by comparing total areas obtained from this model to these same areas obtained from graphic method Gess than ±0.4%). Other formulas widely applied by researchers under- or overestimated total area under a metabolic curve by a great margin.
Absolutely hilarious!
Sorry, I'm not very smart or something, I don't get why it's hilarious, can you explain?
She rediscovered part of a first semester calculus course and named it after herself, then had it published, and literally nobody stopped this from getting into a medical journal.
> Sorry, I'm not very smart or something, I don't get why it's hilarious, can you explain?
You learn this theory (you find the area under a curve by adding up the boxes under a a curve) in your first semmester of calculus and is the basis for the integration which is a huge focus for the next two symmesters of calculus. (And that's only what I have taken.)
The trapizoidal rule that she "comes up with" (something you learn in Calculus 2) is acctually not even the most accurate way to estimate the area under a curve. Simpsons rule is more accurate.
It's hilarious because any engineer would instantly know to use these rules since you learn them freshman year of undergrad. This medical student redefined very commonly know theroms around those who use calculus more.
DISCLAIMER: I am only a Junior CS student who did well in Calculus. Anyone more experienced, please feel free to correct me.
Presently cited over 300 times according to Google Scholar:
https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cites=18129095207210817294...
It's like an academic equivalent of a software patent on an existing idea.
Incidentally, I was looking into these citations yesterday and many are serious ones. Which is worrying.
Someone pointed out that most of them probably cited as a joke, like in the legal field where they cite ridiculous lawsuit names ("The United States of America vs Satan")
Yeah, they're not serious citations. They're either criticisms or jokes. I've heard that it's become a bit of a meme.
Ha!
For whatever it's worth, physicists aren't necessarily up on everything written by the medical community. Take for example, these letters to Diabetes Care written in 1994 criticizing Tai's article soon after it was published:
www.math.uconn.edu/~kconrad/math1132s14/handouts/taicomments.pdf
> For whatever it's worth, physicists aren't necessarily up on everything written by the medical community. Take for example, ...
I'm confused. While I definitely believe that you are correct in that assessment, the example you gave doesn't seem relevant.
Mary Tai was an EDD (doctorate of education), not a physicist. and the reply was from the mathematical community, not the medical community.
Is knowledge knowledge if unknown?
This is similar to founders/creators getting kicked out when mass marketing kicks in - who generated the wealth?
In terms of human good, unfortunately it's the latter.
And if the definition of the Scientific Method includes sharing with a community. If so, you cannot do science alone. But how big does the community need to be? Does sharing it with one other person enough? A small community? A large community? Everyone?
I think, if we're going to include sharing, it has to be with all humanity (broadly, to include other imtelligences). Wartime science isn't science.
This is sad because it shows that general enducation standards have dropped dramatically across the board given that this sort of stuff really should be (and used to be) known by every high school student..
I could see some new authors being overly cautious with "cite everything" guidelines - since you can't exactly cite your high school maths lesson, maybe it's the most easily findable paper to explain integration?
What country or state are you guys in? We've never touched on calculus in Pennsylvania high schools. The advanced math courses focused on trigonometry.
Australia in the 70's
Previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17250073
I made top dollar in college tutoring bio majors in calculus. It just wasn't their core competency.
Does anyone have a reference for 'cutting it out and weighing it'?
Has she applied for a patent yet?
That’s incredible.
It's a trap(ezoid)!
Don't judge a paper (solely) by the number of citations.