Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

If you can see this message, the SSL certificate expiration has been fixed.
Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 75 KB, 540x960, 1564353324686.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11295132 No.11295132 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

How often do people without degrees write papers that are taken seriously? I want to do my own independent work but I'm not interested in academia when I can just teach myself and get a better paying job.

>> No.11295140

>How often do people without degrees write papers
all the time

> that are taken seriously?
never

>> No.11295141

>>11295132
>How often do people without degrees write papers that are taken seriously?
Never.

>> No.11295148

>>11295132
You can publish if you want but almost no one will cite you and therefore no one will popularize you. There are enough hack scientists with PhDs already so being one without even the Phd is fighting an uphill battle.

>> No.11295149

>>11295132
literally draw them a diagram that anyone would get.

>> No.11295152

>>11295132
>I can just teach myself
You probably can't.
>and get a better paying job.
You definitely can't.

>> No.11295154

>>11295140
>>11295141
>>11295148
Are there examples where something of value is overlooked or are they just shit papers? And if the former, how should I approach this without a degree? I might just get the degree later if there aren't any reasonable paths.

>> No.11295169

>>11295140
Clamped, vaccinated, circumcised.

>> No.11295172

>>11295140
good goyim
1 shekel has been deposited into your account

>> No.11295238

Trouble is that without credentials you are lost in a sea of people who have some pet theory about something or other. There are a lot of them out there. The fact is 99% of them are uneducated morons barking up the wrong tree ( the perpetual motion type ), or just fruitcakes who devised their brilliant insights based entirely on conspiracy theory tier reasoning; full of fallacies and cherry picked data ( the flat earth type ).

Now add to that how academia has gone nuts with the prolific publishing of papers, most of which contains material of either a trivial or useless nature, then you can see the chance of anyone picking up your paper becomes vanishingly small.

That's not to say it is impossible. State an amazing conclusion about something and if your reasoning and data is not stupid or batshit insane then you might be able to talk a junior academic into looking over it.

But get to the point fast. No one wants to waste 20 minutes of their life reading through some unconventional jargon just to discover the author has reinvented the fuel cell. Or worse, that the author has successfully unlocked limitless power from a crystal matrix using their own brainwaves, and would the reader like to attend a demonstration in the middle of bumfuck nowhere at their own expense?

If you really think you have a solid idea then make an appointment to see them and take them a coffee or something.

>> No.11295314

>>11295238
Thanks for the serious answer.

>> No.11295331

>>11295154
They're not papers but back in the WW1 days almost no one had a real education and there was plenty of interesting problems that laymen had a chance of tackling. But nowadays there are like millions of engineers doing this kind of stuff so no dice.

>> No.11295367

>>11295148
>>11295140
>>11295141
>>11295238
I kinda feel like this could work in mathematics. Especially if it's a short and sweet paper, not too specialized. Most can understand it quickly. Has to be a nice result and presented well of course.

>> No.11295861

>>11295132
>How often do people without degrees write papers that are taken seriously?
happens all the time, you are a student, you write a paper, it's waterproof and accepted by science community, that's how you get a degree

>> No.11296578

>>11295132
Lets break it down. Who do you want to be taken seriously by? Sounds retarded, but most of "the scientific community" can have vastly different opinions on what kinds of papers are legitimate, but the average person who sees a post on IFuckingLoveScience doesn't care at all if you're a PhD or not.

If you want people in the field to take your paper seriously, what you're really looking for is for them to write their own papers that reference yours. That's how researchers get street cred. It's going to be hard to get a legitimate study to reference yours, because they often really care about how legitimate the journal is that it's published in. So how to you get published in a well respected peer-reviewed journal? You have to convince them that 1) You know what you're doing and 2) You're not lying. If you have a PhD, you have something you can point to and say "See, you can trust me, I know how to do research and publish a paper." Sadly, if you don't have that, they are alot less likely to be interested in you.
There is one way thought that I haven't seen anyone reference yet: Get a professor to co-write the paper. This is how some undergrad students get their papers published. They approach a professor with their plan fully set out, and the professor basically just signs off on it. Then the student follows through with the tests, writes it up, and the professor makes whatever changes they like. If you're not in undergrad and have never gotten your Bachelors degree this might be not be possible, because a professor won't be willing to stick their name to any old joe schmoe with a bright idea. But if you are really determined to get this paper published in a respectable journal, you need to start contacting professors about them co-authoring a paper with you. 1/2

>> No.11296579

>>11296578
2/2

If by "taken seriously" you mean you want to be scrolling through twitter and you see your cousin retweeted a picture that references findings from your research? Like one of those "Did you know that Hot Tubs can sterilize men for up to three weeks?!" ones. Well then you're actually just looking to get your paper published anywhere, and I mean anywhere, that will take it. Doesn't have to be peer-reviewed, doesn't even have to be written well. Then once it's "published" on their site you forward it to all the science related pages on facebook/twitter/youtube and say "Hey look, here's a study that found ___ results". Likely they won't bother to verify anything and as long as the results can be boiled down to an interesting tagline, they will share a vaguely relevant picture with text over it saying your findings. If that doesn't work, just make one yourself and post it on instagram and @ a bunch of low level influencers. They are mindless drones who will share anything to make themselves look smart.

>> No.11296586
File: 517 KB, 1600x2200, __kirisame_marisa_touhou_drawn_by_nikorashi_ka__7ba2002542c726d919793cd2e23a1306.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11296586

Happens every now and then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amateur_mathematicians

>> No.11296591

Everyone in academia is more or less a moron that couldn't do shit without a degree, so if you're actually smart and capable you won't be taken seriously by people who couldn't do it because they'll assume you're like them

>> No.11298107

>>11296578
Getting a Prof to attach his/her name to you is probably your best bet. Actually, if you live near a uni and have some background in the field, you can probably hit up a Prof and ask if you can do some free labor for them. Profs are always looking for new slaves for their endless pet projects and ideas so they will at least hear you out on possibilities if you have a reasonable resume. This works better for more experimental fields where the biggest hurdle is man hours put into doing runs. If you are asking to be a theoretical physicist or mathematician, you going to have to pony up a bunch of your own work, write it up a portion of it, and email it to a Prof. Hopefully you will be actually on to something and you two can work something out.

>> No.11298775

>>11296586
Also astronomy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Myers_Amateur_Achievement_Award

>> No.11298814

>>11296586
It used to happen every now and then. Vanishingly rare anymore.
95% of that article is so dead their picture is either in black and white or a drawing

>> No.11298920

>>11295132
>How often do people without degrees write papers that are taken seriously?
Almost never I would say, if you ever find an example that would be the excemption of the rule.
Although, don't you find this a bit contradictory, you want to be part of the academia with very limited interaction with it, I just don't get it. I also believe that you are more interested in being accepted or getting recognized, than with knowledge or science itself. If you wanna learn things by yourself you should get rid of this recognition ideas, it is a one way ticket to frustration.

>> No.11298942

Musk got published in nature for neuralink.
Yes his name was first on the paper.

>> No.11298952

>>11298942
He has a bachelors. If that qualifies for OP's condition then there are literally tons of people who qualify.

>> No.11298960

>>11295132
>How often do people without degrees write papers
I've never heard of that ever happening, let alone the rest of your question.
> that are taken seriously?
Several fields feature many high-end venues with double-blind reviews so you would be able to pass no matter your credentials should your paper be actually good.
>I can just teach myself and get a better paying job.
The company you work for could be interested in helping you publish your paper even if it has nothing to do with them, if you finish it within your own time and can show them that it's good stuff.
I think your main problem will be publication because that costs a lot, and attending presentations should you be accepted when it is of that format, because again it costs a lot.

>> No.11298963

>>11298942
It's different from some no-namer publishing the result of his independent work. If some mathematician with a good academic reputation decided to write a paper on organic chemistry, for example, other people in academia would at least check his work out. The problem with not having a PhD or even a Master's degree is that most people will have little to no incentive of checking your work unless you somehow have a good reputation. It's not like anyone has the time (or the will) to dig through hundreds of shit papers by nobodies until they find a gem

>> No.11298972

>>11298920
>you want to be part of the academia with very limited interaction with it, I just don't get it.
Not him, but academia here is too brutal to be worth it. Professors are feudal warlords ruling over the post docs with an iron fist. Academic inbreeding is rampant and people caught fabricating data are let back in as long as they have connections, including one of the largest scandals around here where I am. The works of students and post docs are rifled for patentable inventions and applications. People about to retire find their doors have had the lock changed so that their "colleagues" an now milk the archives for publishable material where there will be as few coauthors as possible.

>> No.11298975

>>11298963
Not to mention the overwhelming majority of papers by reputable PhD holders are dogshit to begin with.

>> No.11298985

>>11295154
Shit paper is a gross understatement, they vary from kindergarten-tier bullshit (I'm not at ALL exaggerating) to lsd-induced schizo garbage (likewise I'm not exaggerating whatsoever).

>> No.11298991
File: 128 KB, 513x789, Oheaviside.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11298991

>>11295132
Why would they want anybody to prove that their overpriced service is unnecessary. Especially when it's becoming more and more obvious in the internets aeons.

>> No.11298992

>>11298942
Nature and science don't care about actual quality of work, they care purely about mass appeal (because caring about mass appeal increases your readership which is very profitable and means everyone wants to publish in nature/science). They routinely publish bad/irrelevant/decades out of date theft-tier copypasta research in their main sections and the only common pattern is that it always comes from someone big (google, musk, etc.)

>> No.11299008
File: 62 KB, 674x962, Z6jcCmTfGLs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11299008

>>11295367
yeah, like this maybe

>> No.11299020 [DELETED] 
File: 1.24 MB, 1920x826, 087.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11299020

>>11299008
but not like this, when too many sacred cows are slaugtered at the same time

>> No.11299024
File: 1.24 MB, 1920x826, 087.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11299024

>>11299008
but not like this

>> No.11299138
File: 398 KB, 2518x1124, 1578916195449.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11299138

>>11295132
Greetings from a neighbouring thread!

>> No.11300855

>>11299008
Yes!
>>11299024
LMAO!

These two posts together bears the attractive properties of the paper in the first post.

>> No.11300873

>>11295132
>science is empiricism
>a piece of paper somehow changes the nature of empiricism

I want off the ride NOW

>> No.11301149

>>11300855
Mind explaining how the second example is substantially worse?
You may also want to watch three minutes of this conversation, beginning with 30:50:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxGPe1jD-qY#t=30m50s

>> No.11301180 [DELETED] 

>>11301149
Because they will glance at it for 15 sec to gauge whether they will spend time on it. I have watched that conversation before, it's about trait openness, creativity and intelligence right? Not sure what point you a linking too, but I don't have time watching it right now because your post is so unappealing to me and it seems like you want to make me feel stupid or something. Learn from the first article. Be short and just as importantly SWEET.

>> No.11301194

>>11301149
Because they will glance at it for 15 sec to gauge whether they will spend time on it. And most will think this is a bit messy and strange. Most people just aren't that open. And if you are the person behind the work in the second pic, I am truly sorry. I did not intend to invalidate your work. I take no stance on the validity of your work. I haven't read it with care yet. My point was intended to be about presentation, and I stand by that it could be done better. But I guess I failed at presenting this.

>> No.11301216

>>11301194
Cont.

Okay, let's get dirty. You need headline! And after the headline you need a sentence or two that initiates the paragraph in a coherent manner.
>And though in Hebrew ...
Isn't the best opening sentence.
The superposition of diagrams over the text is growing on me as it makes it possible to cram a lot of info into the pic, but could clean up the positioning. Other than that it looks fine presentation wise.

If you want to print it could be nice have A4. This will also make it look more ordinary which will work to your advantage. It's just a shape right, that why the shape you picked is totally fine, and it's also why it should be OK for you to change it if you can gain something by it.

Obviously you need to put your name on it, but I understand that you don't do this on 4chan.

>> No.11301254
File: 187 KB, 500x206, fuckemall.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11301254

>>11301216
>it should be OK for you to change it if you can gain something by it.
Oh, it wouldn't help. Just like Peterson righteously said, "You can't get creative things published. You can get incrementally better things published"

>> No.11301261

>>11300873
empiricism changes nature of empiricism

>> No.11301449

>>11301254
While I didn't notice that he said that (my mind must have wandered), I do think there is truth to it. To be clear, what I said wasn't anything remotely close to the negation of what you said. And I know you know that, because by saying that, regardless of the context of the conversation, I know that you are the type of person that likes to diverge. Here by a razor sharp transformation by transposition. And I cherish this! And I hope you will be able to use this ability to make the results of this ability look like incremental improvements of the established, when it in fact, it is revolutionary, such that you too can be rewarded for what you deserve to be rewarded for.

>> No.11301469
File: 36 KB, 500x385, RzpQ5pojg7c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11301469

>>11301449
Thank you, but watch this: >>11295140
what it says is most likely true, because there's also a business aspect to it. And an aspect of control, not many people would like to put into the spotlight somebody you neither can control nor actually know what to expect from. In the past we had to die or to imitate our deaths, now we'd rather cast death upon the building of academia instead.

>> No.11301514

>>11298952
Strange I was posting under the impression that he never finished any type of academic education.
Regardless he is publishing papers as a private independent entity and I think that covers ops question pretty well.

>> No.11301522

Galois did some of the most groundbreaking work in all of abstract algebra, he basically founded the field (no pun intended), and never had a degree. That being said you are not Galois, which is obvious because you wouldn't be second guessing yourself and posting here if you had any ability whatsoever.
Basically, if you have to ask, then there is no chance you will be taken seriously.

>> No.11301525

>>11301522
Also unfortunately this

>> No.11301534

>>11301522
Maybe her question was not if she should keep on doing whatever she's doing, but if she should waste her time on keeping on sending her papers to academic journals.

>> No.11302078

>>11301522
Galois was admitted into the ENS which is way more impressive academical background than most mathematicians nowadays.

>> No.11302910

>>11295154
Ignaz Semmelweis was disregarded for awhile because MDs are psychopaths: see Semmelweis effect. Gregor Mendel's founding of genetics was completely ignored for thirty something years

>> No.11302960

>>11295154
Usually overlooked. Academia largely operates off of a whitelist. People establish connections, trust each other's work, and that bleeds over into peer review because a given topic probably has tens to hundreds of people working on it.

That being said, expatriate academics likely have good luck publishing since they know people. Otherwise, you may have to go shopping around for someone in the field to pitch your work to directly to see if they'd be a co-author.

A significant and simple result can likely slip through the cracks though. Or you can publicly post the result to establish ownership. Journals can suck a duck anyway.

>> No.11303017

>>11295140
Ok boomer. The world is waking up and you are woefully unprepared and lack the terrible and wonderous creativity for what’s coming. Your spirit and intuition has been put in a black box on a shelf and fed to the wolves, your metamorphosis to a trivial sheep successfully completed. Enjoy your phd! While you can.

>> No.11304320

>>11299008
Imagine being a venerable and world-renowned mathematician and getting eternally BTFO in two sentences by a pair of literal whos with a calculator and a dream. Holy shit. How can Euler ever recover from this?

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action