A genomics professor has devised a tongue-in-cheek measure of scientific work vs. scientific recognition.
Neil Hall, a genomics professor with the University of Liverpool, has kicked up a bit of an Internet storm. He's written a paper and has had it published in the journal Genome Biology, suggesting (with tongue firmly in cheek) that some scientists are getting more attention than they deserve, due to their heightened social standing. He's even come up with a way to measure it, his so-called "Kardashian-index" or more simply, K-index-it's derived by noting how many people are following the scientist on Twitter and then dividing that number by followers the scientist probably should have due to papers written and associated citations for it, i.e. proof of actual work done.
The index is named after Kim Kardashian (and her family) of course, who have become famous for being famous -- they don't actually do anything. And that's the point of Hall's paper-is the scientific community in danger of being overrun by scientists who make a lot of noise in the social media world, but do very little actual scientific work? Hall notes that there seems to be times when scientists are asked to give talks at conferences based more on their social standing than on work they have actually done. This begs the question, are scientists (regardless of field) just as susceptible to the cult of celebrity as everyone else and if so, is it harming science?
Full text: http://genomebiology.com/2014/15/7/424
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06 2014, @09:35PM
John Lilly had a stupendous k-index.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Lilly [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06 2014, @09:39PM
Hope it calls out this guy.
(Score: 2, Funny) by PrinceVince on Thursday August 07 2014, @09:06AM
My first thought too, he's the Deepak Chopra of popular science. Thought less bad, I imagine Brian Green and Neil deGrasse Tyson qualify as Kardashians as well.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by rcamera on Thursday August 07 2014, @12:09PM
I don't have a problem with the Michio Kakus, Neil deGrasse Tysons, and Brian Cox' of the world. Though at some level they become more celerity than scientist, there's nothing wrong with that. Their new role in the scientific community can be seen as making science fun/cool, and therefore getting more people interested in STEM.
The point of shows on Discovery Science / NatGeo isn't to teach these topics with any level of depth, but merely to get folks to dip their toe into the water. The same holds true for "Cosmos(Sagan/1980)", and that was the STATED purpose of "Cosmos(Tyson/2014)". If enough people become "somewhat interested" in STEM topics, then a fraction of these will become "very interested" in the topic, and go on to study in greater depth.
How many of today's scientists credit Sagan with getting them started? The more of that there is, the better off we all are in the long run.
/* no comment */
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:27PM
Listen to Brian Cox on TIMC (The infinite monkey cage). He's a geek (particle) physicist all the way through.
He also still publishes original research...
Sure, being in the "media" requires some polish. But I think he got his the natural way....he was in a band!!
Dara O'Brian is an example of someone who loves science, but his real "job" is comedian. His involvement in science shows really helps engagement...
I agree with the central point, that STEM needs much greater uptake...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DrMag on Wednesday August 06 2014, @09:55PM
Perhaps the better way to phrase the statement in the summary would be "This makes one consider, are scientists (regardless of field) just as susceptible to the cult of celebrity as everyone else and if so, is it harming science?"
The answer to those questions are, emphatically, yes, and yes. I say that as a scientist.
But it's not quite the same thing. Often times a scientist achieves celebrity status because of the reputation she or he has built among her/his peers. It's very important that we examine the credentials and the reason for their fame--Neil Tyson is the poster child of American celebrity scientists, but he's also very trustworthy as a scientist, and not one to toss in fallacious ideas (or toss out good ones) with no thought. When he does make a mistake, he's one who owns up to that and corrects it.
The problem isn't that some scientists become celebrities, it's that people tend to give celebrities a deified status; every scientific statement should be subject to scrutiny, no matter from what mind it originates.
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday August 07 2014, @01:50PM
I find myself in agreement with your comment.
I don't consider myself a scientist even though I have two STEM degrees(in Veterinary Medicine and Biochemistry).
So, from a layman's POV, I love the Neil Tyson youtube vids(and many others!) as astrophysics/cosmology is a huge interest/hobby with me. I don't take their talks as 'gospel', but use them to fill in gaps, or to point me in directions to fill those gaps.(same way I use Wikipedia...a doorway leading to knowledge-not an authority)
My opinion is that these scientist-celebrities[1] do a wonderful service to the masses, bringing science and discovery to light.
The youtube vid's of panels of scientist get together to discuss and debate a subject are particularly informative: you get to see and hear about the knowledge gained, the uncertainties, and the disagreement, all in one! I really like that.
I realise that here I am highjacking the context, but I would ammend that by removing the word scientific, or by something like this:
"...every statement should be subject to scrutiny(especially scientific statements), no matter from what mind it originates."
I feel the need to do so because of the availability of data(not facts) provided by media nowadays. The internet is a wonderful tool, but two-edged..we need to keep that in mind. :-)
About the 'begging the question' issue, I quit worrying about that some years back...it's been highjacked and twisted by the masses, along with 'hacker', and many others.
To argue about it now is just pedantic dithering; like arguing about what the precise shade of color the bus is that is bearing down on you. It's no longer useful, and just a distraction.
[1]provided they conduct themselves as 'true scientists', as you point out with regards to Neil Tyson.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Marand on Wednesday August 06 2014, @09:59PM
That isn't begging the question [wikipedia.org] and should be written as "this raises the question" instead. Support BTQ awareness [begthequestion.info] today!
I know, everyone uses it that way and we should just give up and let the unwashed masses redefine the phrase because it's already a lost battle. In conversations I don't say anything about it, but it annoys me to see crap like that in places where proper English should be important, like in TFA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06 2014, @10:26PM
The only the reason the phrase is rendered in English as "begging the question" is due to unfortunate translations:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2290 [upenn.edu]
"Begging the question" does not describe the idea it denotes and so it should be abandoned and replaced with something logical, like "assuming the conclusion".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday August 06 2014, @10:45PM
Guess we should just go back to Latin for scientific work, that would solve the entire celebrity question!
On the other hand, question begging is not the begging for questions, as illiterate morons think that "begging the question" means, so the problem is not just unfortunate translation. It is more a falsely construed similarity. A parallel that may be informative is the British English expression, a "damp squid", as a way of saying that something does not live up to expectation, or fizzles. The original expression was that something was a "damp squib"-- see that? Different word! A squib is a small explosive charge, which if damp may sputter or fizzle instead of exploding. Squid, on the other hand, are almost always damp to begin with, so the expression is either redundant or meaningless. The use of "begs the question" for "raises the question" is the same kind of mistake, usually made by those who are educated enough to have heard the phrase, but not well enough to understand it. So it is, in fact, and literally, something of a damp squid. And not a famous Kardashian Scientist kind of damp squid.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Wednesday August 06 2014, @10:48PM
Nice link, hopefully somebody will mod you up for that.
Unlikely to happen, but I wouldn't mind if it did; I find the phrase itself to be a bit strange and would prefer to see it used as little as possible. As it is, I would be happy if people would restrict its use to only referring to the logical fallacy. That alone would remove the phrase from the vast majority of English use.
Won't happen, though, so I'll just continue to gnash my teeth when would-be journalists throw it into their writing to "add flavour" in a vain attempt to sound smarter.
(Score: 3, Funny) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Wednesday August 06 2014, @10:31PM
That's an interesting factoid about begging the question that you shared with us!
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07 2014, @12:16AM
Would "this begets the question" be ok?
(Score: 3, Funny) by gman003 on Thursday August 07 2014, @12:46AM
Oh, get over it.
First off, linguistic prescriptivism is a pointless fight that you will never win. "X begs the question" is perfectly valid phrase meaning "X raises the question", because that's how people use it. I understood exactly what was meant, you understood exactly what was meant, everybody understood what was meant.
Second, there's little chance the "begs the question" phrase will be confused with the "begging the question" logical fallacy. It's used in quite different contexts, both syntactically and logically.
Third, the phrase as *you* use it is based on a mistranslation, as your own Wikipedia link informed me. Which begs the question, why is the mistranslation considered the "correct" usage, and the one based on the individual meanings of the words considered the "wrong" one? It would be far more logical for it to be the exact opposite.
I'll try to make this criticism constructive, and suggest an alternate phrasing. "Arguing for the antecedent" could be used as a replacement for "begging the question". If that seems too formal, you could use "restating the question" or "returning to the assumptions".
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday August 07 2014, @01:55AM
Because it is not slang, where "bad" can mean "good", or "cool" can mean "hot, and so forth. It is a pretension to vocabulary that the speaker does not grasp. So it does not mean what people think it means, even though they keep using it! (Yes, I know, it inconceivable!)
And the usual, non-classically derived name for the error in reasoning is "arguing in a circle". Circular reasoning is like saying that a word means whatever people think it means, so whatever people think a word means is what it means! Hey, that begets a question: what if people do not know what a word means, but they keep using it anyway?
(Score: 2) by Marand on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:26AM
Wow, you got really offended about my comment. I didn't expect anyone to be that vitriolic over it.
I already said it was a lost cause and that I don't worry about it in casual contexts. In fact, I said that in the comment you responded to, as well as stating that I only commented on it because it was a glaring mistake in a place where proper English is important: journalism*. In casual contexts, sure, redefine the language how you like, as long as all parties involved still understand what you mean; but when the context is more formal, the rules matter, even if you don't agree with them. There are grammar rules I consider idiotic and generally ignore in casual conversation, but I still follow them when I write something formally.
Also, for what it's worth, I rarely use the phrase at all because I don't generally need to refer to the logical fallacy and I believe there are much better ways to phrase the incorrect usage. Saying that something "raises the question" is usually the intended phrase, but it's not the only way to state the intended thought. So, why use "begs the question" when it's clunky and doesn't quite work? Any time someone says "begs the question" it sounds like they're begging this guy [wikipedia.org] for mercy, not asking a question.
---
* I suppose you could argue that the linked article doesn't qualify as journalism, but that's an entirely different argument, and one that would likely offend the people writing the articles. I doubt any sysadmins would appreciate being called a "computer janitor", for example, so I choose to assume the writers consider themselves journalists and hold them to similar standards.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday August 06 2014, @10:46PM
By this metric, the majority of Nobel Prize winners score zero. That is, they published papers and didn't bother with Twitter.
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07 2014, @08:05AM
If you have published just one paper, which got just one citation, but completely stayed away from social media, you already score just as well as those Nobel Prize winners.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Wednesday August 06 2014, @11:39PM
It's not the importance conference or other entities place on specific persons or the amount of work but rather the impact the work has on civilization that matters at least scientifically. The measurement method used indicate that the only hard working scientists existed before twitter due to numerous papers and no followers..
Perhaps a better score would be accomplished by counting mentioning in newspapers and conferences vs amount of papers vs citation of produced papers. The latter perhaps is a better indicator of useful work rather hard work that leads to very little results.
Most people tend to look at the content of a book and who wrote it rather than the number of pages. And as with computers, more MHz doesn't equate to more computations.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Joe on Wednesday August 06 2014, @11:43PM
Big names that give talks at conferences often aren't there to present their research (the people under them did the work anyway) - they are there to give a great talk.
Dr. Vincent Racaniello (~6500 followers) is someone who the paper would label as a "Kardashian", but he has that many followers because he participates in a lot of scientific outreach (mainly through his podcast - This Week In Virology http://www.twiv.tv/ [www.twiv.tv]). He is knowledgeable and, through social media, can educate much more of the general public about important scientific issues than if he doubled his scientific publication count.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07 2014, @09:03AM
Are scientists immune to cult-of-personality? Hur hur hur, NOPE!
Ain't you ever heard of Einstein??! Newton?? How about Kirchoff?!
Those guys were right about everything!
Anyway, getting closer to topic: K-index is crap, because science is already overrun by people gaming the system by releasing papers rather than actually doing research....
And every Big Name you know just proves it!
Quick question, how many people with the last name Bernoulli have published scientific works? How many other "Big Names" throughout history are actually a disconnected bunch of people who happened to share a surname with someone already famous?
Clearly, the only actual way for science to be properly immune to cult-of-personality, would be to *require* that all new scientific work be published anonymously!
k-index should be calculated based on real world impact, calculated on the basis of increased growth as an ultimate result of work done. Trouble is that isn't easy, and you have to wait too long...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07 2014, @01:49PM
Increased growth of what?
I sincerely hope you don't mean increased economic growth. Because that would mean to reduce science to only a helper of economics. That's not what science should be.
Have you noticed that there are very few popular science books about stock trading, but very many about cosmology or string theory? What do you think why this is, maybe because unlike stock trading, cosmology and string theory are extremely relevant for economy?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by aristarchus on Thursday August 07 2014, @11:06AM
I gave my scientist extra chili peppers, because she is "hot"! (See discussion about slang, above). Yes, this is why letting idiots (journalists, the public, undergraduate students) evaluate anything is a really bad idea. For all the discussion of the "begs the question" faux pas (um, that's French for a social mistake, just incase you are illiterate), we are faced here with a more deadly fallacy, the argumentum ad populum, yes, the appeal to Karadashians! Or popularity. My Favorite was in intellectually beleagured state of Wyoming, where they allegedly said, "Eat lamb, 10 Million Coyotes can't be wrong!" Or in the 50's: Nine out of ten doctors who smoke, smoke Camels! Nearly Five Million Coyotes smokes Camels, too, but that is not important now.
Judge no scientist, or other academic, until they have been dead for at least one hundred years. Only way to counter act the "star" syndrome of scientists who are famous because they are famous, like the Kardashians. (And here, at the end is our petitio principii, where we beg the question of why they are famous. Got it now, mouth-breathers? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc "And people mock you online...." Ha!.>
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 12 2014, @10:12AM
Ass.