[references] How to Do Research

目录:
** 0x01 做研究/写论文的Alpha/Beta
** 0x02 How to Do Research | 经典指南
** 0x03 思考写作与研究的区别 | The differences between tinkering and research
** 0x04 科学研究上的涡流和创新
** 0x05 全世界有哪些大学?
** 0x06 完美的论文
** 0x08 博士研磨(PhD-Grind) | Philip J. Guo的博士生涯回忆录
** 0x09 开放学术搜索

0x01 做研究/写论文的Alpha/Beta

做一个项目,会有Alpha/Beta/... 多个阶段的项目发布过程。做研究,写论文,也应该是要有这种过程,通过分阶段以及阶段之间的事后诸葛亮分析,可以尽早发现问题,调整方向,并获得初步的经验。

从这个角度来说,如果一个人要做研究,他要是本科学的很出色,大可不必选择“硕博连读”,或者“直接读博”,因为这相当于让你以为整个周期只到最后才需要发布项目(论文),这样的过程周期更长,风险性更高。

把硕士/博士分开成两个阶段是更好的,理由是:

  1. 可以在硕士期间更好地掌握做研究并初步写可发表论文的技能,加上硕士毕业本身需要的硕士毕业论文的写作训练。
  2. 避免硕博连读可能会出现的一直想憋一个大招,结果啥都没憋出来,到最后也没能先通过难度系数小的论文写作来得到锻炼。
  3. 硕士学习本身,可以让学生获得一个研究/发布的完整周期锻炼,而对研究/发布完整周期的理解是重要的,科研要遵循有步骤的规律。
  4. 如果硕士毕业的时候发现自己做研究挺擅长的,还想继续做,就可以继续读博。如果不擅长,就直接去工作,不是挺好的吗?
  5. 避免长周期下不能出结果导致的骑虎难下,造成更大的心理压力,而又不能有一个中间结果的两难,最后走极端。

当然,有些人可能不是出于如何循序渐进掌握做研究/发布的工作的角度,而是有下面这些动机,你怎么看?欢迎补充:

  1. 一次性获得读博士的机会,不愿冒硕士毕业的时候再考博的风险?
  2. 一次性获得减少硕士/博士在学校的时间,比如连读可能只要5年,分开读要6年?

实际上这些动机可能只是因为对不确定性的恐惧而产生的,并没有站得住脚的理由。相比之下,通过Alpha来测试自己是否在做研究上能适应,是更合理的。当然,不排除下面这些不良动机的存在:

  1. 学生科研能力不行,但是希望获得一次性读博的机会,通过混来得到博士学位...
  2. 担心考博考不过,希望通过一次性获得读博的机会...
  3. 导师可能想要一次性获得对这个人才的长周期脑力劳动力支配权...

最后,更可能的是:

  1. 没有考虑过这些,学院说有硕博连读的机会,有直博的机会,看上去是个“好东西”,就接受了...

许多人在学业上,都是跟随惯性,没有经过思考,这中间当然蕴含许多不可控风险,有些甚至会演变为极端的结果。而Alpha/Beta的模式,则是一种更通用的、可遵循的、风险可控的循序渐进之路,你觉的呢?

0x02 How to Do Research | 经典指南

下面是几个网上流传比较久的,“经典”(classical)的关于如何做研究的文章。

0x03 思考写作与研究的区别 | The differences between tinkering and research

这篇文章里,作者 Julian Togelius 从他的角度解释了科学研究和非科学写作/实验之间的区别。作者从四个方面比较这其中的不同,包括「学术性」、「测试」、「目标」、「耐力」等。摘要下每个方面的重要段落:

  • link: togelius.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-differences-between-tinkering-and.html
  • author: Julian Togelius

Scholarship:

Researchers go out and find out about what other people have done, and then they build on that so they don't have to reinvent the wheel. Or if they do reinvent the wheel, they explain why they have to reinvent the wheel and how and why their wheel is different from all the other wheels out there. In other words, researchers put the thing they have done into context.

It is about the accumulation of knowledge and progress on the scale of the human species. If we learn from each other, we can ultimately push the boundaries of what we collectively know forward and outward; if we don't learn from each other, we are bound to do the same things over and over. And it's way more likely that others will learn from you if you make it clear how what you are doing is different from (and maybe better than) what was done before.

Testing:

The point is that if something is worth making, it's also worth studying and describing. If you don't study it when you're done, you're not learning as much as you could. And if you don't describe it well, nobody else will learn from it.

Goals:

A key characteristic of research is that we don't really know what the results will be (which is why most grant applications are lies).

Usually, goals in research are not just goals, but ambitious goals. The reason we don't know what the results of a research project will be is that the project is ambitious; no-one (as far we know) has attempted what we do before so our best guesses at what will happen are just that: guesses. If we understand the system so well that we can predict the results with high accuracy, chances are we are tinkering. Or maybe doing engineering.

Persistence:

Most papers report tiny steps towards grand goals. Results that are not in themselves very exciting, but hopefully will help us sometime in the future solve some problem which would be very exciting to solve.

Like generating good video games from scratch, curing cancer or algorithms that understand natural language. The vast majority of such breakthroughs don't just happen - they are the results of sustained efforts over years or decades.

0x04 科学研究上的涡流和创新

[1] 学术“创新”的湍流现象
[2] the-scientific-paper-is-obsolete

“学术‘创新’的湍流现象的基本定义是:由于研究者多(管流速度很大),研究时间长(圆管长度很大),导致在某个时期(圆管的某个下游位置)出现毫无实质性研究进展的停止现象(出现湍流的阻流现象),而且,在近期及当前(有时,局部学术团体)进一步出现在学术上的倒退现象(湍流区可能出现沿管壁的回流现象)。”

作者总结了对科研上的创新的理解:

** 总之,共识化原则,不能用于评价“创新”;违反共识,并不是真“创新”。
** 违反共式(否定已有的学术本质成就)+无法包容多数实验(就几个实验而立论)=假创新。
** 本质上的创新(吸纳和消化共识的本质)+形式上的违反共识(重新解释相关多数实验)=真创新。

0x05 全世界有哪些大学?

  • Github上有一个cvs,里面收集了全世界大学的官方网站,不过最后一次更新是2015年:https://github.com/endSly/world-universities-csv/blob/master/world-universities.csv
  • 在World Higher Education Map(WHED)网站上可以查阅:http://whed.net/home.php

    The IAU WHED Portal is the International Association of Universities' unique online reference tool that provides comprehensive and detailed information on Higher Education Systems and Credentials (in 186 countries) and Institutions (more than 18,500) around the world.

    • 地图点击分区(其实就是几个世界分区的图片SVG),然后出来一个字母分类列表,再选择大学。
    • 右侧有快速搜索,直接输入大学名字可查,例如输入:xiamen university
    • 右侧有高级搜索,但是这个需要机构和会员才有账号。

0x06 完美的论文

If you want me to read the vast literature, cite me two papers that are exemplars and paragons of that literature. Foundational papers, key recent innovations – whatever you like (but no review papers or summaries). Just two. I will read them.
If these two papers are full of mistakes and bad reasoning, I will feel free to skip the rest of the vast literature. Because if that’s the best you can do, I’ve seen enough.

If these two papers contain little or no original work, and merely link to other papers, I will also feel free to skip the rest of the vast literature. Because you could have just referred me to the papers cited, instead of making me go through an extra layer, I will assume your vast literature is likely to be a mud moat.

And if you can’t cite two papers that serve as paragons or exemplars of the vast literature, it means that the knowledge contained in that vast literature must be very diffuse and sparse. Which means it has a high likelihood of being a mud moat.

0x07 如何判断一个学校是否能称为一流学校?

原文:http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-412323-1126801.html

他自问自答,暑假闭楼的学校是什么样的学校?是中小学和幼儿园!依中小学和幼儿园的模式能建成“一流”而且是世界“一流”大学?判断一所大学是否“一流”或能否成为“一流”,没那么复杂,只看这所大学有多少老师暑假不给自己放假就够了。

0x08 博士研磨(PhD-Grind) | Philip J. Guo的博士生涯回忆录

[1] PhD-Grind-en
[2] 中文翻译:博士研磨,一个博士研究生的回忆录

简介:这本书记述了从 2006 年到 2012 年,作者(Philip J. Guo)在斯坦福大学攻读博士研究生 期间六年的求学经历。这本书适合广泛的读者群,其中包括:
• 有志攻读博士研究生1的本科生;
• 寻求方向或灵感的在读博士生;
• 希望更深入了解博士研究生的教授;
• 希望聘用和管理拥有博士学位员工的雇主;
• 在充满竞争的创新领域工作、与自我追求和自我激励密不可分的专业 人士;
• 对学术研究充满好奇的有一定教育背景的成年人(或者早熟的青少 年)。

读后感:很精彩的过程,我感觉作者很有小强精神,每次死磕无果总能在不撕破原来关系的情况下寻找新课题做,但又都尽量尝试去和环境中能结合的做结合。其实他一直就是想做自己心中有过强烈想法的课题,最好的事情是他每次都死磕把程序写出来并发布了,还死命找用户,IncPy:Automatic memoization for Python一开始一个用户都没有,后面做CDE: Automatically create portable Linux applications已经可以做到1000个实际的Linux用户,可以说是很有心得了,不过最后一次冲刺花了最多时间死磕的程序,论文却被拒收了,有点意外。作者最后做了一堆FAQ总结,很有价值,可以*******推荐了。我觉的这本书确实不只是跟博士有关的人应该阅读,所有“在充满竞争的创新领域工作、与自我追求和自我激励密不可分的专业人士;”都值得一读,请准备4个小时猛击阅读

0x09 开放学术搜索

posted @ 2017-09-28 15:11 ffl 阅读(...) 评论(...) 编辑 收藏