Unruled Notebook

Entries from June 2007

Top Twenty Lies by Young Faculties

June 21, 2007 · 15 Comments

The post is inspired by this list [via] and is India-centric at places, although most of it is applicable elsewhere in the academic World.[Disclaimer: before you decide to either read between the lines or judge me, notice the category of the post again.]

  1. (sigh….) the true potential of my talents are realized only in a top research university in the west
  2. …and i don�t want to apply there because the weather there doesn�t suit my wife
  3. my research is top notch and is too “fresh” to be recognized and “cited”
  4. the Renowned Scientist in my field personally said “hi” to me at The Conference
  5. due to the nature of my research topic, i require at least a crore (~ 200,000 US $) for experimental facilities to start my research
  6. (…and) my rejected proposal suggested very “fundamental” ideas, and fell in disfavor with the “practical” reviewers
  7. my department takes good care of all my academic needs and demands
  8. there is no hierarchy at my workplace
  9. i like being placed in multiple committees; it shows i am sought after by my colleagues
  10. i like to receive advice from my senior colleagues
  11. i love to work with and guide (advice or supervise) average students; that is the real challenge…
  12. i am not working for my tenure; i do it for the love of the profession
  13. the course that i am teaching is the one i always wanted to teach
  14. I love teaching…
  15. …in particular, UG kids
  16. (to students, especially UG kids) I am available anytime in my office
  17. I left a 100k (usually in US $) job elsewhere to do this…
  18. …and I never resented it.
  19. I am not bothered by my friend with an UG degree earning five times more than me
  20. this is a noble profession

Categories: Academics
Tagged:

Plagiarize and Perish

June 6, 2007 · 14 Comments

The recent editorial in the Journal of Microporous and Mesoporous Materials is worth taking a look.

As the editorial is behind a subscription wall, I have “copied” the entire text of that note (with proper citations and credits of the source and without claiming originality for writing any part of it) and have given it here for the benefit of the readers of this blog.

Microporous and Mesoporous Materials 103 (2007) iii

Editorial

Note from the Editors

Dear Readers of Microporous and Mesoporous Materials,

Please be advised that the article by S.M. Prabhu and S. Krishnan, entitled ��Nonlinear two dimensional potential based study of coupled heat and mass transfer in a porous medium” published in Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, 95 (2006) 241-247, plagiarized the work of H.R. Thomas and S.D. King, ��A non-linear, two-dimensional, potential-based analysis of coupled heat and mass transfer in a porous medium”, published in International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 37 (1994) 3707-3722. The Editors of Microporous and Mesoporous Materials will not be accepting any articles even for review in the future from S.M. Prabhu, Chemical Engineering Department, Satyabhama University, Chennai, India.

Available online 23 March 2007

In the highly competitive international research publication environment, short-cut acts like these are certainly detrimental to the hard work and earnest efforts of many other excellent Indian researchers, when they try to seek their deserved international recognition. In particular, other young researchers from this country, who are trying sincerely to make a decent name in the international scene only through their original work, would sympathize with what I am writing.

Long time readers of this blog may remember the post Publish or Plagiarize, else Perish. It is worth a revisit at this juncture.

Plagiarize and Perish.

Categories: Academics

Rationality and Godel

June 4, 2007 · 13 Comments

Some time back in my post Take My Worldview Quiz, I have made a claim in all innocence that “a rational person would always know he/she is rational.” Seems not to be. At least that is what Aaron Fenyes from the University of Michigan argues in his reply sent by email. I have reproduced the content in full for your enjoyment. Note to self: watch out hereafter for every word of what you write on the internet, in particular, at this blog :)

Aaron Fenyes on May 26, 2007 wrote:
Dear Prof. Narasimhan,

In one of your old posts (“Take My Worldview Quiz“), you remark that “a rational person would always know he/she is rational.” Mathematically, however, it’s easy to make a persuasive case that just the opposite is true: a genuinely rational person CANNOT know that she is rational!

What is a “rational person”? One reasonable definition is, “a person whose thought process corresponds to a consistent formal system.” A formal system is just a rigid, rule-based system of reasoning, such as Euclidean geometry or predicate logic. A consistent formal system is a formal system that can never contradict itself. I think most people would agree that a person who never contradicts herself is at least somewhat rational, whereas a person who does contradict herself is definitely irrational in some way.

If we accept this definition, we can put the statement “a rational person would always know he/she is rational” into mathematical terms:
“Any consistent formal system (call it X) can be used to deduce the statement, ‘X is consistent.’”

In 1931, however, a mathematician named Kurt G�del proved that

“No (sufficiently powerful) consistent formal system X can be used to deduce the statement ‘X is consistent.’ In fact, if X can be used to deduce the statement ‘X is consistent,’ then X is definitely NOT consistent!”

This is now known as G�del’s second incompleteness theorem. The “sufficiently powerful” caveat just means that the theorem does not apply to extremely simple systems — systems far too simple to reasonably represent a human being.

Translating G�del’s second incompleteness theorem into more conversational language, using our definition from before, we get:

“No (reasonably intelligent) rational person can ever really be sure that she is rational. In fact, anyone who IS sure that she is rational is definitely NOT rational!”

Of course, applying mathematical logic to human beings is a tricky business, and philosophers have been arguing about what G�del’s incompleteness theorems say about human thought for decades. Some have used them to argue that the human mind must be fundamentally different from any formal system, allowing it to transcend G�del’s limitations. Others suggest that the mind is simply a very powerful formal system, just as limited as any other, although those very limitations may prevent us from seeing it.

Sorry about the long e-mail… I hope you enjoyed it. Keep up the good blog!
:)

Thanks Aaron for the write-up.

Obviously I have doubts here. Let me present one for incompleteness sake. As written by Aaron

“No (reasonably intelligent) rational person can ever really be sure that she is rational. In fact, anyone who IS sure that she is rational is definitely NOT rational!”

This means, if one were to be rational, one shouldn’t be sure of that fact. This could then mean, at least for enough instances, the person need not assume oneself to be rational. The person could be classified “irrational” in such instances? If this is true, the obvious result would be to conclude the premise on which one was to conclude this person (or oneself, in general) rational is wrong, a fallacy of the present argument.

As Aaron writes, applying Godel’s Incompleteness theorems to humans is tricky business.

Categories: Micro Muse

Academic Delusions

June 2, 2007 · 10 Comments

There are individuals, particularly in academics, who think they are super genius. They suffer from lifelong acute superiority complex. Some of them are even aware of this affliction but are helpless. You look at them hard you can notice the crown on their head. Look harder, you can see the shape of the throne behind them. Even while they are walking.

Nothing wrong per se. After all everyone has a right for self delusion. Only, on their way to self-imposed King-Arthur-ship these individuals also pick and master the art of putting others down consistently or taking them for granted.

And through the years this trait grows exponentially, as the burden of self-imposed genius grows. There comes a situation in life when these individuals can no longer interact with anyone without putting them down with a patronizing wave of their hand or ask a simple hello-how-are-you-doing without making it sound as if it is the greatest act of altruist service extended by them to the undeserving stupid world.

Such individuals usually don’t know how to treat you with human respect because, for them, you are sub-human. Even when they want something from you, they can only place that request to you as an order in a patronizing tone. For instance, when placing a request they don’t start sentences with a “May I” or a “Can I”, but it usually starts with an authoritative “Why don’t you”. They then proceed to demand their request. It could be a request for borrowing books, research papers, notes, software, hardware, your consent for doing a donkey job, your signature on the dotted line, your consent for them to take your below average course so that they don’t need to put any effort in acing it, you get the idea. They then proceed to promptly take these things off your shelf or self in righteous ownership and scoot off with a derisive thanks.

Of course, the thanks is for managing a modicum of pseudo-courage and not cringing into a non-entity and pissing your pants off in their brilliant presence. After all, fools like you anyway don’t deserve to wield some pride or own such things in the first place, which rightfully belongs in the world only with such super genius.

You accede to all of this because, after all, even after all of your elevated degrees and so called research, you simply are a loser who is relegated to work in this god forsaken place that is only made fertile briefly by the sojourn of such aforementioned genius. It is only a matter of years you wait and see while these geniuses win the Nobel, while you are still trying to fart your loser’s pants off.

There is another variation of this super genius. This type of individual has shown success in an academic scale, in that, there are actually enough research publications bearing her name, awards and citations of reasonable promise decorate her resume and office and colleagues do regard her for her reasonable success in lesser years of good effort. Until this point things are fine. Only, the promising individual is also a snob. Based on her success (which should always be credited) she would assume she is the most intelligent genius to have traversed this part of Earth and the rest of the colleagues and community are relative non-entities. If one were to praise another such colleague or peer in front of her, she can’t stand it. Immediately whatever is the earthly or silly side of the praised individual (and we all have silly sides, don’t we?) will be explored and dissected until everyone agrees with her point of view that she is the best and the rest are still trying.

Worst still, many times she will even stoop to preempt the possible raise of anyone else in her immediate vicinity by selective bad mouthing about every other promising talents with administrative and academic superiors. She deliberately reserves some time every day for doing this: collecting information by asking discreetly or indiscreetly, superiors, colleagues and subordinates about every other person who is a possible threat for her title and fiefdom; consolidating the information into juicy anecdotes and exaggerated but well established opinions; spread them back to others by deliberately talking about it without being asked for in crucial meetings, committees and seminars; make sure everyone concerned hears it by talking again at the tea shop. And of course, all along the way, peppering the talk with more of her accomplishments and good deeds.

If you confront her with her behavior, she would theorize it with a seemingly innocent reply that goes “There is something called “official grapevine” in every hierarchy and I am merely acceding to its demands and feeding it”. Of course, many times this official grape-whining works to her advantage. After all, the rest of us must realize that if we can stand her success, why not also her bullying. Anyway we all are losers who can always be taken for granted.

Such specimens do get in your nerves and distract your working and contribute at times to your inefficiency. But in the long run, one should know how to deal with these insecure minds. One good way is to simply keep ridiculing them and putting them in their pedestal with enough sarcasm, whenever one gets a chance.

Thankfully, the audience of Science is spread far and wide in the World and mostly silent. And hundred years from now, it is all new people on this Earth. All the intermediate vainglorious castles are dissolved inexorably into thin air by the relentless passage of time. Only one’s work remains, if at all.

Meanwhile, let these super geniuses continue to be, like Dirty Harry, legends in their own minds.

Categories: Academics · Muse
Tagged: