Re: Off topic - Dagstuhl and research in general - was Re: Trip Reports on Dagstuhl Seminar on Knowledge Graphs

As a mathematician I cannot but agree more with the general idea that science itself cannot progress, unless we allow free thinking, open discussions and interaction, and whenever necessary free from imposed rules.
The AI-KR-KG landscape is starting to look a lot like the landscape of modern physics with competing theories, conflicting fundamental interpretations of reality.
In the end it all boils down to being able to use natural language in a loosely of well-defined fashion to formulate ideas, concepts and build upon these.
Linguists, mathematicians and philosophers have all debated on the consistency of theories, knowledge and our ability to full describe, grasp or understand the real world and the world of ideas and thoughts.
In the discussion about AI, KR,  KG and related subjects we should maintain an open mind, avoid dogmatic frameworks and generally "accepted" principles of what constitutes good science.
As a mathematician hailing from a backwater country in terms of the existing international science landscape I have had to steer away and stay clear of all the pitfalls and traps of conducting research and the pursuit of science in a very ISOLATED environment.
The pursuit of science, including philosophy and linguistic research is best served by sticking to some basic principles.
Wherever and whenever possible use formal methods and frameworks, like mathematics and logic. Adhere to the scientific method where applicable. Be conscious of the mainstream thoughts about what constitutes science, but also be open to reject these when you can produce ideas that can be tested and validated challenging or departing from current established principles and interpretations.
The Schloss Dagstuhl seminars are in line with the best of traditions of rational, free form and open discussions.
I propose we stick to rational, free form and open discussions.
And we can learn from physicists who seem to be grappling with similar problems.
Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

| 
| 
| 
|  |  |

 |

 |
| 
|  | 
Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Ma...

If a theory can’t be tested, is it still science?
 |

 |

 |




Milton Ponson
GSM: +297 747 8280
PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
Project Paradigm: Bringing the ICT tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide through collaborative research on applied mathematics, advanced modeling, software and standards development 

    On Friday, August 30, 2019, 9:18:40 AM ADT, Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org> wrote:  
 
 Hi Paola,

As you say, you are making comments that are clearly offending people.
You have apologised for the offence or discomfort caused a number of times - and I interpret your apologies as being used in the sense of "regret".
However I understand that you feel that you can do no other, as Luther might have said.
Your views on the scholarship of the Seminar seem pretty clear to me, and further statements seem to achieve nothing.
In these circumstances, I think it is best that you leave your comments on record, rather than keep repeating similar comments that offend, in differing ways, as you continue to do.

With regard to your method, I have some concerns.

Firstly, you say there is an "inadequate level of scholarship".
Your conclusion is based on "the report (which  I agree is incomplete and partial account)".
This seems to admit a woeful lack of evidence for you to make such a sweeping statement, which is clearly deeply insulting to any of the attendees who might consider themselves scholars..

You might argue, I suppose, that the lack of a complete and comprehensive account is prima facie evidence of lack of scholarship - but I think that is a very weak argument to try and make.
Does every coffee-room discussion betray a lack of scholarship?

Secondly, you seem to keep coming back to the funding issue.
You have a particular view of how publicly-funded research should be carried out.
Not all would agree with that.
It seems to me that the people who organise and run the Dagstuhl Seminars do not share your view of what should come out of the activity they choose to fund.
They are very happy with their investment, it seems, as they have been funding it for almost 30 years.
So in a market-driven world, the evidence is that the Seminars satisfy the needs of the buyer, and so a good transaction is taking place.
It may not satisfy your needs, of course, but you are not particularly the purchaser the Seminars.
Of course, in addition, there are complex questions of taxation and salaries - but in general, there is a socio-political system that has chosen to buy the Seminars.
I am even left with the impression that your views of the Seminar would be different if it was not publicly-funded, and for example only attended by gentleman philosophers such as Charles Babbage and myself.

Finally I also say that at least this small degree of diversity in the research landscape should be welcomed.
Innovation does not flourish in a homogeneous world.

Hugh

<further_digression>
There was a time when members of professions were expected to personally understand their role, and carry out the duties required to the best of their ability.
And there was a level of trust from society that they would do so.
Of course, I understand that the world has moved on since the 1960s.
Often using theories from economics, driven by models from subjects such as Game Theory etc., the politicians have de-professionalised almost all professions (they failed with the lawyers, but that was predictable),
Researchers and academics were part of this.
So now every funded activity needs to be judged on the value of its outputs; and that judgement must happen to a short timescale too.
Often this means that the unjudgeable, such as advancement of scholarship, or even scholarship itself, must be judged by judgeable proxies.
This is not a good thing for a serious number of reasons, which are discussed extensively (but not enough) elsewhere.
</further_digression>






> On 30 Aug 2019, at 07:45, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hugh, and all
> This is how it came about:
> I am researching the topic of KG/KR
> and the report came up in searches, I remembered the thread and the trip report posts
> on this list.  In fact I was hoping to links to the slides but no reply- 
> From what I have read (which may have been limited reflection of what what said/done)
> key fundamental questions *that I am working on were not even remotely, and what was reported showed, in my view, an inadequate level of scholarship, based on the exceedingly range of challenges that KR/KG. What I read was trivial and superficial and sounded more like everyone had a party
>  I expressed this sentiment with a follow up post in the thread.  I apologised for the offence cause (although arrogance is a token of exchange in academic circles I am not aware of anyone apologizing for being abominable either when authoring nor in peer reviewing). I am not trying to impose reporting requirements or anything.
> John D:  of course, for people who have been drawing salaries from univerisitis and research all/most of their ilves, there is nothing wrong with it.  There is complacency and a lot of rubbish passes through the quality assessment of funded research. So yes on the one hand there measures in place to ensure adequacy, on the other hand there measures in place to demonstrating adquacy even in the case of sub standard outcomes)
> 
> P
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 7:18 PM Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org> wrote:
> Sorry to go a bit off-list-topic, but I think that is where we have got to.
> Although there is discussion of the nature of KR, KG, etc., the deeper issue here is about research culture, and the Schloss Dagstuhl seminars in particular; along with Paola's criticism of this one.
> 
> I first went to one of these amazing meetings in 1990 (in fact it was only the third held there).
> At that time, it was such a refreshing event to attend.
> Already the cold wind of proposal gantt charts, outcomes, measurements, and mandating of practical results had blown through academia and research labs, so that the freedom of scholarship that such places had been built to nurture was well on the way to destruction.
> And these requirements have been monotonic increasing since then.
> So I can only imagine how exceptional a Dagstuhl seminar must feel for current academics.
> 
> I was going to try to describe how they differ from workshops, conferences and research meeting, but that turns out to be a really big essay.
> So I will spare myself that - and you, dear reader.
> 
> However, what I want to do is firmly reject the suggestion in this thread that a research meeting should always have written outcomes.
> > 
> > On 29 Aug 2019, at 01:21, Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > So, Alex  Valentina and all, if I am allowed, the main criticism for me remains":
> > ...
> > 1. very limited publicly accessible proceedings for a publicly funded workshop (the report, which as you say is just a  short summary but no other more comprehensive resource is provided)
> > ...
> > 
> 
> In fact, looking at the web page for this meeting, I am even disappointed to see extensive reports from the break-out sessions.
> No!
> This meeting was just a community of scholars meeting together to try to understand a particular topic in which they were all interested.
> A requirement to document that discussion is a distraction from the discussion, and makes it less productive.
> Worse still, a requirement to produce an agreed outcome would seriously undermine the nature of the discussion.
> And the need to produce such documents can discourage attendance, as they mean attendance may be a bigger commitment than otherwise, and the amount of time for proper discussion is reduced. The idea of a week away is challenging to busy researchers, so limiting the commitment to exactly that is very attractive.
> An abstract from each speaker which can be written at the seminar (by hand?), indicating what views they may have, and what they spoke about seems perfectly adequate.
> 
> Yes, if detailed reports and proposals and outcomes come naturally from the activity, that is helpful; but if there is no such thing, then that should be perfectly acceptable.
> 
> Schloss Dagstuhl was, and still seems to be, a beacon of light in an otherwise dreary, paper-grinding, results-driven and -oriented research world.
> 
> If only we could have a lot more like it, and even reflect more of it in our own institutions and funding councils.
> 
> Best
> 
> -- 
> Hugh
> 023 8061 5652
> 
> 

-- 
Hugh
023 8061 5652