Conversation

Notices

Embed this notice
Daniel S. Katz (danielskatz@fosstodon.org)'s status on Wednesday, 06-Mar-2024 22:19:53 JST Daniel S. Katz

A new article I contributed to has now been published:
Mohammad Hosseini, Alex O. Holcombe, Marton Kovacs, Hub Zwart, Daniel S. Katz & Kristi Holmes (2024) Group authorship, an excellent opportunity laced with ethical, legal and technical challenges, Accountability in Research, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2322557
In conversation about 8 months ago from fosstodon.org permalink
Attachments
1. Untitled attachment
- Embed this notice
  powersoffour (powersoffour@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 06-Mar-2024 22:19:49 JST powersoffour
  in reply to
  - Jost Migenda
  @JostMigenda @danielskatz Large collaborations have been, but there has also been some resistance: https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2291 (and, importantly, a response: https://arxiv.org/abs/0708.1199 )
  In conversation about 8 months ago permalink
  Attachments
  1. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: arxiv.org
    
    Fundamentalist physics: why Dark Energy is bad for Astronomy
    
    Astronomers carry out observations to explore the diverse processes and objects which populate our Universe. High-energy physicists carry out experiments to approach the Fundamental Theory underlying space, time and matter. Dark Energy is a unique link between them, reflecting deep aspects of the Fundamental Theory, yet apparently accessible only through astronomical observation. Large sections of the two communities have therefore converged in support of astronomical projects to constrain Dark Energy. In this essay I argue that this convergence can be damaging for astronomy. The two communities have different methodologies and different scientific cultures. By uncritically adopting the values of an alien system, astronomers risk undermining the foundations of their own current success and endangering the future vitality of their field. Dark Energy is undeniably an interesting problem to attack through astronomical observation, but it is one of many and not necessarily the one where significant progress is most likely to follow a major investment of resources.
  2. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: arxiv.org
    
    A Thousand Invisible Cords Binding Astronomy and High-Energy Physics
    
    The traditional realm of astronomy is the observation and study of the largest objects in the Universe, while the traditional domain of high-energy physics is the study of the smallest things in nature. But these two sciences concerned with opposite ends of the size spectrum are, in Muir's words, bound fast by a thousand invisible cords that cannot be broken. In this essay I propose that collaborations of astronomers and high-energy physicists on common problems are beneficial for both fields, and that both astronomy and high-energy physics can advance by this close and still growing relationship. Dark matter and dark energy are two of the binding cords I will use to illustrate how collaborations of astronomers and high-energy physicists on large astronomical projects can be good for astronomy, and how discoveries in astronomy can guide high-energy physicists in their quest for understanding nature on the smallest scales. Of course, the fields have some different intellectual and collaborative traditions, neither of which is ideal. The cultures of the different fields cannot be judged to be right or wrong; they either work or they don't. When astronomers and high-energy physicists work together, the binding cords can either encourage or choke creativity. The challenge facing the astronomy and high-energy physics communities is to adopt the best traditions of both fields. It is up to us to choose wisely.
- Embed this notice
  Jost Migenda (jostmigenda@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 06-Mar-2024 22:19:52 JST Jost Migenda
  in reply to
  
  @danielskatz Interesting how much things vary between different fields! In experimental particle and astrophysics, large collaborations have been common for decades; it may be interesting to look at how some of these issues have been handled there?
  
  In conversation about 8 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  Jost Migenda (jostmigenda@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Mar-2024 11:28:19 JST Jost Migenda
  in reply to
  - powersoffour
  @powersoffour @danielskatz Interesting discussion, thanks for sharing!
  FWIW, I find the point on authorship/citations the weakest part of the first preprint. (We know that only counting citations is a terrible way to measure scientific achievement! So not being able to do that any more is hardly an argument against larger collaborations.)
  
  In conversation about 8 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  powersoffour (powersoffour@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Mar-2024 11:58:50 JST powersoffour
  in reply to
  - Jost Migenda
  @JostMigenda @danielskatz The first one *definitely* had a lot of pushback at the time, in all fairness. You were not alone feeling that way!
  
  In conversation about 8 months ago permalink

Public

Conversation

Notices

Feeds