Re: Conferences in computer science
[email protected] Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:20:22 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.science.mathematics.frogs |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
The general idea is actually not quite new. When I attended a lecture in social psychology (many years ago), the teacher told us about a field test which consisted of a eloquently written paper without content, which the conductors of the field test managed to get published in a quite prominent journal ... ... withouth any doubts, the situation became worse in the meantime ... Pascal. Alessio Guglielmi wrote: > At 16:39 +0200 15.4.05, Alessio Guglielmi wrote: > >> Hi, Ugo just informed me that a randomly computer generated paper has >> been accepted at a computer science conference, so I thought I should >> pass this info on: <http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/scigen/>. Ciao, -Alessio > > > The main Italian newspaper, "Corriere della Sera", has reported on this > today: > <http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Scienze_e_Tecnologie/2005/04_Aprile/15/mit.shtml>. > > > As naturally happens with outsiders, for the reporter the conference is > `worldwide known', its promoters are `first-rate scholars', conferences > are held in `luxury hotels' and there are `participation gifts'. Imagine > how keen the average reader of the article is to finance research. > > Obviously, this degeneracy is possible because we slowly lowered our > quality standards and pressed for quantity at the expense of quality. In > this case, the conference is clearly crap, but what about the recent > Montreux one? They asked to write the conference program to the Monty > Python, but still attracted some first-rate scientists in the committee > and as authors. > > In the beginning, I had a doubt that maybe something like Montreux could > have its usefulness anyway, but I was wrong: I think we should boycott! > > One (excellent) participant told me that 20% of the people there knew > about logic, and had interesting scientific exchange and fun talking > about the rest 80% of completely clueless people. In a situation like > this, you could see the 20% full glass, and say that the event was > useful to the people with a clue. I think we should look at the 80% > empty glass, and insist that there is a danger of degeneracy that in the > end will damage us all. > > -Alessio Guevara > -- Dr. Pascal Hitzler Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe, 76128 Karlsruhe email: [email protected] fax: +49 721 608 6580 web: http://www.pascal-hitzler.de phone: +49 721 608 4751 http://www.neural-symbolic.org