>read a paper from the 60s>10 pages, gets to the point, everything is crystal clear, bibliography is 4 citations>read a paper from 2020s>100 pages of slop, 80 pages are spent jerking off other academics, deliberate obfuscation galore, bibliography alone is 10 pages
The invention of the internet and online journals allowed academics to write extremely complex arguments citing and referencing hundreds of sources almost effortlessly. This has led to much higher expectations and standards. Furthermore, many works that would have previously been worthy of a published monograph are now just published in online journals, and monographs are comparatively lighter reading nowadays due to having less technical density than articles.
>>16937120cool it with the anti semitism.
>low hanging fruit>easy to explain>high hanging fruit>harder to explain
>>16937120just feed it into an AI. make it summarize the paper for your convenience! :)
>>16937120>bibliography is 4 citationsThats bad
>>16937133>>16937145Another factor is that there was simply a lot less to cite, fewer experts and articles in a particular subfield. We publish more articles in a year than were published in the entire decade of the 60s, and the 60s were publishing far more articles than were being published in the early 20th century, let alone the 19th. Even if the volume of publication hadn't increased we'd still have half a century's worth of new articles over scientists working in the 60s, and at the increased volume of publication it's more like several centuries' worth. Back then you could be the first to wonder "hmm, what would happen if I exposed hamster ovaries to ultraviolet light?" and just publish the result, nowadays you'd have 20 relevant articles from 4 continents to comb through before you can even claim you're doing anything new involving UV light and hamster ovaries.>>16937162It's common courtesy to recapitulate all previous relevant research that the reader/reviewer ought to be familiar with, but it's not "bad" to skip that.
>>16937145>high hanging fruit>harder to explainLet's look at more recent studies:>Transgender intersectionality as a tool of fighting white oppression>Study with poorly thought out methodology professes fantastic results for a drug that fails in clinical applications.>More or less everything that was published about covid 'vaccines'>Unfalsifiable string theoretic applications but somehow we still gotta pay those physicists to eat their crayons.You know. I'm convinced that the average guy, including PhD and stemlets, can only access a limited number of ideas which would explain why modern-day academia cycles through the same theories every 20 years.
Btw, when they market that immortality or slow down aging drug, they sure as hell won't tell you that it will cause cancer.
>>16937177>if you live longer it will cause cancerits already like this though.
>>16937177That's exactly the sort of thing that would attract media attention. But despite the gorillion op-eds and billion podcasts opining on potential health risks of the miracle pill, which will absolutely get made whether the concerns are founded or not, schizos will still prattle on about it as if it's some esoteric knowledge that TPTB are hiding from us.
>>16937176The fact you had to pull all of those examples out of your ass is pretty telling.
>>16937159NO. FUCK OFF. RETARDED TECH BRO BALLWASHER. YOU DO NOT BELONG HERE.
>>16937252Luddite commie pls go..
>>16937257>hurr durr ludditekys nigger>hurr durr u far leftNo I'm not. I'm more center right if anything.>pls goThis is my home. (You) are a tourist.
>>16937257If you use >luddite in the context of AI you should kys.
>>16937243The fact these examples are all real should show what a joke academia is since it just ends up regurgitating whatever crap their funders want to hear. Besides mathematics, chemistry, physics and arguably biology, even that is up to date, most of academia is just garbage.
>>16937120Counterargument. I've been reading through tons of astronomy journals from the 60s and 70s as part of my literature review and they're some of the least clear, least concise academic articles I've ever read.
>>16937282You don't know what you're talking about. Biology is the discipline pushing tranny shit.
>>16937641>Biology is the discipline pushing tranny shit.No? The tranny shit is pushed in spite of biological sciences. There is absolutely no uncertainty about the concept of biological sex, I can assure you. People trying to confuse you over that are not biologists but sociologists or political figureheads.
>>16937643https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-020-0666-3https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6677266/Biology papers. You will never be a scientist.
>>16937406Think about it from their perspective, not just them really. Imagine being the generation that has to follow up from the previous generation of scientists making their exist from the 50s onward. Even the cranks and pseuds of the generation were polyglotal geniuses like Tesla and Copenheimer. The normalfag copied their elegant prose, but he was too dumb to realize those features are superfluous to precision, simplicity and insight. And of course there was a narrow band of these civil sciences before the take over of the Mossadian system of science and the modern venture of public education stomping out any hope of a prodigal return.
>>16937266>>16937269>21:31>22:31do nusamefags really?
>>16937703Incoherent AI-generated gibberish.Very sad what's happening with 4chan.
>>16937668Absolutely irrelevat cherry-picked papers with the standard likely botted "You will never be X" phrase meant to socially manipulate people into contrarianism.
>>16937765Lmao. You will NEVER be a scientist. You have no credentials, you have no training, and have no idea how academics function
>>16937641>>16937643>>16937668>>16937765Fucking retards arguing about something that is not even a controversial issue in endocrinological sciences. So much of this shit has already been examined through fucking brutal experiments on animals between the 50s and 70s, and subsequent observations have been entirely consistent since then, including observations of developmental trajectories in humans with genetic conditions that mirrored the procedures in those experiments.This is first-year endocrinology shit, if either of you were genuinely as familiar with the topic as you pretend to be, you wouldn't be having this retarded argument.
>>16937780
>>16937783
>>16937776Again, pathetic demoralization attempt.>you wouldn't be having this retarded argument.There is no argument over it because endocrinology clearly shows a genetically and hormonally predetermined developmental pathway that results in male and females.>>16937783Diseases do not disprove a rule. E.g. the fact some people are born retarded or become so does not suggest that being retarded is normal. In fact, it suggests disturbance of the normative developmental pathway which shows that being mentally retarded is a disease state. In other words, something not actually 'intended' by the evolutionary process.
>>16937797>hormonally predetermined developmental pathwayYeah you don't know shit. Hormones aren't the determinate factor. Hormones don't have any "magic juice" in them that makes them "female" or "male". They're inert messengers.The determinate factor is chromosomal sex and genetic makeup. The reason that trannyism exists is because it's more efficient for various traits to be coded only once, and for activational/deactivational effects to occur during development. The clitoris is anatomically the same structure as the penis. Men have nipples with no observable function. If certain tissues are present, hormones affect the development of those tissues. If those tissues are shared between sexes, the activational effects of sex hormones skew the development of that tissue towards feminization or masculinization, or towards defeminization and demasculinization. Sex steroids are not responsible for creating feminine or masculine anatomy. They are not the determinate factor and cannot cause the development of tissues that are exclusively masculine during female development, nor the development of tissues that are exclusively feminine during male development.>>16937797>Diseases do not disprove a rule. E.g. the fact some people are born retarded or become so does not suggest that being retarded is normal.You live in your own fantasy world where you feverishly project your political notions on everything you see. I said nothing about a rule or a disease. These studies examine the roles of sex steroids during various stages of development. Genetic abnormalities that result in aberrant levels of various sex steroids during critical stages of development shed light on the roles they fulfill and the mechanisms involved. Tissues that normally develop and are underdeveloped in the absence of adequate levels of those hormones, are likely dependent on those hormones for development. Likewise for tissues that overdevelop in association with high levels of those hormones.
>>16937832Keep it short.What you say is wrong.Since the text reads like LLM gibberish, I assume you're a bot whose primary task is to drive up political division, so I will discontinue conversation.
>>16937780>first-year endocrinology shitYou gotta go beyond first year, anon-kun
>>16937668Those studies just say "if you do a brain scan on a tranny, their brains will look a lot like the gender they're LARPing as"That is not "pushing tranny shit." That is a factual observation. If you have trouble accepting that, then that's *you* being ideology motivated and refusing to accept reality.You will never be a scientist.
>>16937921If that's the case, why isn't Transgenderism treated as a brain disease. ADHD for example sure is yet we have no reliable or meaningful brain scans for that. Seems weird how we use the same thing in two completely different ways to both promote for and against a pathology.Methinks they might be covering up a lot of other stuff like vaccine damage as autism or SSRI side effects as depression.
>>16937922Good question. Maybe ask the field of *psychology* because *psychology* is the field that's actually pushing the tranny shit and the DSM, a *psychological* manual is how *psychologists* in the west define *psychological* disorders.
>>16937923The DSM is, in essence, created by a pharma-funded committee which is deep into corruption. E.g. the move away from reaction to an inherent disease is down to the revolution of pharmaceutical 'treatment' in the '70s.
>>16937668> However, our current understanding of these factors is far from complete and the results are not always consistent. >However, conclusions should be made with caution due to limited sample size.
>>16937120Journals are more or less a financialized cancer on colleague letters. >>16937169If you're writing something that a subfield of experts would care about, everyone you're writing to already has a commons of priors we're all aware of. None of us need to define the word "the" and footnote the OED or MW every time we use it discursively in a letter written to our own ingroup.
>>16938136>If you're writing something that a subfield of experts would care about...The point of defining discipline specific terminology is for the benefit of interdisciplinary research. An archaeologist might not be very familiar with chemistry nomenclature. But he may need to peruse some of the material if he wants to figure out what the gunk at the bottom of some jar was before it spent 5000 years rotting and dessicating.
>>16938153Even if every paper written about gastroenterology and vinification flaws cites a textbook telling you how to derive the chemical nomenclature for mercaptans and also cites every paper that cited that same chain of papers and textbooks before you, it still won't help your archeologist figure out if his jar was a wine bottle or a bedpan.
>>16938163Any potential flaws with that particular example aside, the core point about interdisciplinary work remains. Being hyper-autistic with citations is one thing, but being overtly incomprehensible to laymen is cuntish behavior.
>>16938188Why should it matter to a layman flying in an airplane if the pilot and stewardesses talk to each other in shorthand? Isn't it quite a bit more cuntish to demand a sort of universal, belabored prolixity from everyone around you
>>16938202There's a difference between a private conversation and an open publication. Stop being retarded.
>>16937133This post smells like AI slop. But actually what they're doing is making slop that nobody reads in order to pad citations and circlejerk eachother. It's hardly effortless though. You have to make sure you cited Professor Bergenstein's latest slop paper or he's going to send you an annoying email a month later. Literally nobobdy reads all that waffle. This is even worse now with le AI.t. former academic.
>>16937120>read a paper from the 20s>2 pages, gets to the point, groundbreaking discovery >no bibliography
>>16937133holy cope
>>16937120>read a paper from the 30s>"this came to me in a dream"
>>16937133>The invention of the internet and online journals allowed academics to write extremely complex arguments citing and referencing hundreds of sources almost effortlessly. The latter actually does not follow from the former. It also reinforces the 'sourcing' translates into 'knowledge' meme which by now suggests to me this is AI-generated slop.>This has led to much higher expectations and standardsInjunction of meaningless babbling.>Furthermore, many works that would have previously been worthy of a published monograph are now just published in online journalsUnsubstantiated claim.>and monographs are comparatively lighter reading nowadays due to having less technical density than articles.Follows up with a non-sequitur where, by now, the AI is breaking down and essentially producing gibberish such as "technical density".
>>16938228And colleague letters within a subfield should be modeled as the latter. We don't need more than one compendium per generation detailing the state the of the art; certainly no one needs to communicate their adult research as a child learning how to write their first thesis or dissertation would.
>>16937875Sure, if their argument wasn't already filtered by first-year material. >>16937837>Keep it short.>What you say is wrong.>I will discontinue conversationCool, please address your concerns to Leiden University, since what I told you is almost word for word from a section of this course: https://studiegids.universiteitleiden.nl/en/courses/132785/moleculaire-biologie
>>16937120Overemphasis of the Dogmatic over the Pragmatic
Read steinmetz
>>16938388The problem is that you're largely schizobabbling over issues that were never adressed in the first place which suggests to me that you're a shill and/or bot specifically meant to waste people's time by involving them in pointless discussions.Since 4chan has a major bot/shill problem, most notably the similarly schizobabbling "Cult of Passion" bot, it's hard for anyone actually not to arrive at the obvious conclusion that the whole ordeal is largely meant to demoralize people. I guess that is one way of manipulating public opinion or similarly or to keep the sheeple enraged over some PR-pushed manufactured controversy like trannies trooning out in public etc.
>>16938401Btw. the link you posted does not relate to endocrinology nor sex differentiation.>please address your concerns to Leiden UniversityIrrelevant and again, this is a bot schizobabbling.
>>16938379You should double check what "the latter" means.Pedantry aside, my point was already made clear and you're attacking a strawman.Nobody's asking that you dumb doqn your papers. What is being requested, and many authors have no problem doing this, is that obscyre or ambiguous terminology be defined within the paper so they are comprehensible to researchers from other fields.
>>16938405>doqn>obscyreAre you, by chance, morbidly obese?
>>16938405>comprehensible to researchers from other fields.Any examples? Btw, they're not written for you. They're written for their peers.
>>16938405That's not at all what OP describes. You're the one foisting your pet strawman into the thread and trying to blame everyone else for staying on topic.
>>16938408Underweight if anything. Just tired and phoneposting.>>16938411Examples of what? Comprehensible papers or interdisciplinary research?Btw, published scientific papers are explicitly written for the public. They are a public disclosure of their findings.
>>16938413This is a sidebar to the discussion. Follow the chain of comments.
>>16938403>Btw. the link you posted does not relate to endocrinology nor sex differentiation.Surely you aren't this retarded?>The student describes the relationship between processes that determine whether genes are expressed and explains how these processes form the molecular basis for the development of an organism.The shit you were arguing is not controversial. It's not an unresolved issue in biology. It's not a forefront for political activism in any serious endocrinological investigation. You're arguing about individual pubmed links as if they affirm your entire argument, when this is fucking basic textbook material based on research outcomes that have been consistent over the course of fucking FIFTY YEARS. Why the FUCK even argue about the nature of trannyism and how it's represented in biology publications when clearly your knowledge level is below that of a first year student.
>>16938414>Btw, published scientific papers are explicitly written for the public.
>>16938419>Surely you aren't this retarded?It doesn't, retarded bot.>your knowledge level is below that of a first year student.Again, spam followed up by what amounts to an ad hominem while deliberately missing the point.Why even waste time at that point? It's time to quit 4chan.
>>16938421>services for the public sometimes cost moneyWow.
>>16938423Especially when it's paid by tax money.What an obvious poorly made demoralization shill.
>>16938418It's my sidebar >>16938136 and the post I linked doesn't even disagree that it's "not bad to skip" redundant formalities, only that it's "common courtesy" to include them. I'm saying it's common courtesy to exclude them and that you write like a child if you don't.
>>16938422>deliberately missing the pointNo, you are.The phenomenon of transgender individuals has a clearly discernible molecular basis. The trajectories on sexual differentiation in humans, other mammals, in most eukaryotes have been mapped with very high clarity relative to other biomolecular/biomedical studies. The sociopolitical discourse surrounding transgender individuals does not mirror the practical reality of research in embryology, endocrinology, molecular biology or the study of anomalies in sexual differentiation in humans/other animals.Arguing the point from the perspective of the sociopolitical discourse, quoting fringe studies when there is a massive body of research, is a fucking waste of everyone's time, including yours. You only highlight your own ignorance of the subject and the only thing you are interested in is skewing other people's viewpoints towards your own. If you had any genuine interest in this topic, you would spend the time pursuing some of the widely available course material. If you had any genuine background in this field, you would not reference such fringe studies, nor bother to argue against any.Then when you are faced with actual material from the field, you dismiss it as "schizo" or "bot" or "demoralizing". What is even the fucking point of you arguing about this shit?
>>16938430>it's "common courtesy" to include them. I'm saying it's common courtesy to exclude themThat was my understanding of your argument. I am agreeing with the first poster. Interdisciplinary research is a thing so it is preferable to define terms that researchers outside of your field might not be familiar with.Defining your terms is not "writing like a child."
>>16938431>The phenomenon of transgender individuals has a clearly discernible molecular basisWhich is?>quoting fringe studies when there is a massive body of research, is a fucking waste of everyone's time, including yours. What research?>Then when you are faced with actual material from the field, you dismiss it as "schizo" or "bot" or "demoralizing". No such material has been provided.>If you had any genuine interest in this topic, you would spend the time pursuing some of the widely available course materialNo such material has been provided.
>>16937133> higher standards> unreadable slop with questionable conclusions
>>16938351Quality takedown.It disgusts me you had to put in effort to destroy something the creator took no effort at all to make. This is not sustainable
>>>16938441nice concession I guess?anyway back to (You)r safe space>>>/lgbt/
>>16938452>This is not sustainableIt's not. The point isn't to argue with the 'opponent'. In most cases, especially when it's a shill or a pre-programmed bot, they are NOT open to any form of meaningful discussions. Reddit is full of such bots and it's really, at least in terms of content volume, the reason one why the site sucks. Needless to say, and I keep on repeating this, major acts of PR manipulation or manipulating public opinion happen all the time. It's inserted in your TV shows, just think of product placements, advertising is meant to slowly condition you so that your habits of spending money change on a subconscious level. No advertiser btw hopes that just from watching their commercial you would jump up and run to the store etc.All you can do is to try to analyse arguments, show that it leads to self-contradicting or non-sensical conclusions and hope that whoever reads the conversation will in fact agree with you and realize that they're being played with.
>>16938461Could you please make up your mind and decide if you're arguing for or against transgenderism because so far the whole thing started with me saying that...>The tranny shit is pushed in spite of biological sciences."in spite of" is a preposition that connects some action with a phrase whereby the so formed sentence clearly conveys to the reader that the action is happening even though whatever circumstance is described by the second phrase should make it impossible.
>>16938436That's what a textbook is for. If you preface all your papers with a rewritten encyclopedia article for your field, then yes, you write like a child and an arrogant one at that.
>>16938351>>16938452>>16938463Or maybe you're just too retarded to get it.
>papers I cite because I read them/they are relevant to my work: 10-20>papers I cite because the community is full of raging autists who will dog pile you if you don't cite their tangentially at best work: 40+I can't be the only one who has that problem here, right? I am sick and tired of citing things "for political reasons" or "to show that I am aware of the body of literature". Neither of these would be a valid argument were it not for h-index meta gaming.
>>16938516Not either of those anons but in practice most of the effortless hyperlinking described there puts the cart before the horse.
>>16938421Lol poorfag
>>16938474Once again you are attacking a strawman. There is a chasm wide gap between "opaque jargon only your direct peers understand" and "condescension." I'm advocating you aim anywhere in that gap. Treat your readers like intelligent and educated adults who may not be part of your in-group.It's *fine* to just say "we used U-Pb to date this rock to 500 MYA" and leave it there. It would be *rude* to pad your paper with an exhastive description of radiometric dating and how it's done. It is *ideal* to drop a short blurb about "comparing ratios of radioisotopes to their stable daughter products" and drop a citation to a paper which does go into exhaustive detail.
>>16938537I'm not attacking your strawman, it's way over there with you on the other side of our chasmic dialectical space; I'm ignoring it. That said, I've never dated a rock in my life but honestly "we used U-Pb to date this rock to 500 MYA" is as immediately limpid as apple pie on the fourth of july and it's childish to even drop a footnote about it let alone a short blurb.
>>16938542I chose the U-Pb example explicitly as one that you probably would know at first glance. But I also assumed you were intelligent enough to extract the broader intention the analogy was conveying and apply it to whatever you could think of from your field. Perhaps I was wrong.Though it is worth noting that there are very educated adults from fields unrelated to geology, archaeology, and paleontology who complete their education under the impression that C14 is how we date fossils because their specialty never touched on it. So a blurb should be expected when U-Pb is mentioned.
>>16938546If your impression of dating fossils includes C14, you know what C means, you know what 14 means, and you know what U and Pb mean without a series of perfunctory blurbs about Mendeleev and his academic descendants. If not, "very educated adults" is doing a lot of forced labor on that side of the chasm.
>>16938546Dude, you can date fossils with C14 no problem. You'll date them to anywhere between 4 billion and 50,000 years old.
>>16938551At this point I'm all but positive you're just digging your heels in so you don't have to admit you overstepped. If not then you're genuinely retarded.
>>16938558Glad I made you feel positive about you and your strawman friend over there. Happy wife, happy life, as the saying goes.
