Comments on: The truth will make you relevant http://www.daniel-lemire.com/blog/archives/2008/04/28/the-truth-will-make-you-relevant/ Daniel Lemire's blog is about life in academia, research in Computer Science, wondering how we can reconcile fast databases and algorithms with the informal and asemantic nature of the world around us. It is broadcasted from Montreal (Canada). Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:06:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Kevembuangga http://www.daniel-lemire.com/blog/archives/2008/04/28/the-truth-will-make-you-relevant/#comment-49883 Kevembuangga Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:23:07 +0000 http://www.daniel-lemire.com/blog/archives/2008/04/28/the-truth-will-make-you-relevant/#comment-49883 <i>where “better” means more relevant, more fruitful, more accurate, more true</i> About <b>what</b> and for <b>whom</b>, cui bono? I suspect that beyond the obviously working tit-for-tat and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#The_iterated_prisoner.27s_dilemma" rel="nofollow">iterated prisoner's dilemma</a> policies the well meaning ethics are just a "middle class" illusion. <a href="http://old.exile.ru/2002-July-25/feature_story.html" rel="nofollow">Genghiz Khan</a> was quite successfull but not that much "ethical", on the other extreme of the scale should the downtrodden stick to ethics they will be screwed up even more. where “better” means more relevant, more fruitful, more accurate, more true

About what and for whom, cui bono?
I suspect that beyond the obviously working tit-for-tat and iterated prisoner’s dilemma policies the well meaning ethics are just a “middle class” illusion.
Genghiz Khan was quite successfull but not that much “ethical”, on the other extreme of the scale should the downtrodden stick to ethics they will be screwed up even more.

]]> By: Peter Turney http://www.daniel-lemire.com/blog/archives/2008/04/28/the-truth-will-make-you-relevant/#comment-49882 Peter Turney Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:21:57 +0000 http://www.daniel-lemire.com/blog/archives/2008/04/28/the-truth-will-make-you-relevant/#comment-49882 <i>“crime” sometimes pays. more than it should.</i> Unethical behaviour in general, and crime in particular, is like gambling at a casino. Sometimes you may win, but, in the long run, you will lose. More precisely, the statistically expected outcome is a loss. It is not rational to gamble when the odds are against you. Likewise, a fully enlightened person does not behave unethically. This hypothesis has not yet been proven, but I believe that it will eventually be formalized in game theoretic terms and supported by empirical evidence. I find it to be a useful working hypothesis in my own life. “crime” sometimes pays. more than it should.

Unethical behaviour in general, and crime in particular, is like gambling at a casino. Sometimes you may win, but, in the long run, you will lose. More precisely, the statistically expected outcome is a loss. It is not rational to gamble when the odds are against you. Likewise, a fully enlightened person does not behave unethically.

This hypothesis has not yet been proven, but I believe that it will eventually be formalized in game theoretic terms and supported by empirical evidence. I find it to be a useful working hypothesis in my own life.

]]> By: Peter Turney http://www.daniel-lemire.com/blog/archives/2008/04/28/the-truth-will-make-you-relevant/#comment-49881 Peter Turney Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:08:19 +0000 http://www.daniel-lemire.com/blog/archives/2008/04/28/the-truth-will-make-you-relevant/#comment-49881 I agree completely. This fits well with my view that ethics is enlightened self-interest. In the long run, ethical science leads to better science, where "better" means more relevant, more fruitful, more accurate, more true. (That is, "better" is not merely a circular reference to "more ethical".) "Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the axioms of science. Truth is what stands the test of experience." — Albert Einstein http://tinyurl.com/6n5xrj I agree completely. This fits well with my view that ethics is enlightened self-interest. In the long run, ethical science leads to better science, where “better” means more relevant, more fruitful, more accurate, more true. (That is, “better” is not merely a circular reference to “more ethical”.)

“Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the axioms of science. Truth is what stands the test of experience.” — Albert Einstein

http://tinyurl.com/6n5xrj

]]> By: Mike http://www.daniel-lemire.com/blog/archives/2008/04/28/the-truth-will-make-you-relevant/#comment-49880 Mike Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:08:09 +0000 http://www.daniel-lemire.com/blog/archives/2008/04/28/the-truth-will-make-you-relevant/#comment-49880 oh, your too naive if you believe that good values will prevail :) "crime" sometimes pays. more than it should. oh, your too naive if you believe that good values will prevail :) “crime” sometimes pays. more than it should.

]]> By: Daniel Tunkelang http://www.daniel-lemire.com/blog/archives/2008/04/28/the-truth-will-make-you-relevant/#comment-49879 Daniel Tunkelang Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:07:15 +0000 http://www.daniel-lemire.com/blog/archives/2008/04/28/the-truth-will-make-you-relevant/#comment-49879 Being caught cheating certainly exacts a high penalty for those at the top--who are presumably more subject to scrutiny because of their exposure. I imagine that, for such people, it doesn't pay to cheat. But I'd be curious to know if that holds true for everyone else, particularly when it comes to small cheats. I know a fairly senior researcher who had a reputation for putting his name on papers he barely read. He never achieved godlike status, but he has had a very successful career--quite possibly a more successful one than if he had not co-authored all of those publications. I imagine the same holds even more true for researchers grinding out least publishable units (LPUs) to obtain tenure at lesser-known institutions. I'm not a cynic; I do believe that the world ultimately rewards good behavior. But only in an amortized sense. Being caught cheating certainly exacts a high penalty for those at the top–who are presumably more subject to scrutiny because of their exposure. I imagine that, for such people, it doesn’t pay to cheat.

But I’d be curious to know if that holds true for everyone else, particularly when it comes to small cheats. I know a fairly senior researcher who had a reputation for putting his name on papers he barely read. He never achieved godlike status, but he has had a very successful career–quite possibly a more successful one than if he had not co-authored all of those publications. I imagine the same holds even more true for researchers grinding out least publishable units (LPUs) to obtain tenure at lesser-known institutions.

I’m not a cynic; I do believe that the world ultimately rewards good behavior. But only in an amortized sense.

]]>