I don't think this problem is solvable. We allowed political parties and industry to take control of academia. Fighting for funding has skewed research, truth and honesty. We have people on the left and right fighting over "facts" that neither side understands nor has been explained honestly to them.
Academia will ultimately be the cause of modern society. This is not a solvable problem.
I heard the ironic rumor that King teaches a class where students try to get political science papers retracted because of flawed statistical methodology.
He was Gay's advisor and that is one reason she did not share her code or data.
I have no idea whether Oxman's work is worthwhile or not, and am not motivated to find out. However, I can say that there is nothing at all wrong with the paragraph written by her (I'll assume by her) regarding Voronoi tessellations, aside from the obvious typo in the formula, which I don't think is of any significance. To someone who is familiar with the concept of Voronoi tessellations, it reads as a reasonably clear discussion of the concept, and in particular of the role that the distance function plays, which I take to be the point of it, as a prelude to discussing how to define distance on curved surfaces. There is no bullshit. There is no mumbo-jumbo. It's fine.
I don't think this problem is solvable. We allowed political parties and industry to take control of academia. Fighting for funding has skewed research, truth and honesty. We have people on the left and right fighting over "facts" that neither side understands nor has been explained honestly to them.
Academia will ultimately be the cause of modern society. This is not a solvable problem.
I heard the ironic rumor that King teaches a class where students try to get political science papers retracted because of flawed statistical methodology.
He was Gay's advisor and that is one reason she did not share her code or data.
I have no idea whether Oxman's work is worthwhile or not, and am not motivated to find out. However, I can say that there is nothing at all wrong with the paragraph written by her (I'll assume by her) regarding Voronoi tessellations, aside from the obvious typo in the formula, which I don't think is of any significance. To someone who is familiar with the concept of Voronoi tessellations, it reads as a reasonably clear discussion of the concept, and in particular of the role that the distance function plays, which I take to be the point of it, as a prelude to discussing how to define distance on curved surfaces. There is no bullshit. There is no mumbo-jumbo. It's fine.