Andrei Tarkovsky’s Stalker (1979) Charlie Munger said: “Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome”. The issue with Academic Research is that outcomes have drifted far from the original goal: advancement of scientific understanding and training new researchers. Academic research was meant to break new ground, maintain honesty, and improve common understanding. Recently, I have encountered cases where correctness, honesty, and curiosity when results are wrong are unsatisfying.
Researchers are not interested in learning their papers are wrong or misleading. Once published, promotions and fame are gained; it doesn't matter if results are incorrect and potentially harmful. When I challenged authors of a state-of-the-art paper known to have incorrect evaluation, one author acknowledged issues but refused to retract, asking if it bothered me in publishing my paper.
The incentives are wrong. It's about scientific integrity, honesty, and caring about truth. I see more Ph D students less interested in correctness. They learn from successful figures what matters. I remember when someone told me my algorithm approach was wrong (strongly connected components discovery) and I immediately fixed it using Tarjan's algorithm, feeling deep shame. In contrast, a Ph D student whose tool evaluation was incorrect didn't follow up when I explained the issue.
When I was a Ph D student, if someone showed me sloppy work, I was worried and curious. I recall a reviewer challenging a graph in my dissertation; I stressed for a week before realizing they misread it due to unclear labeling. That care seems missing now.
Source: Hacker News · Summarized by HeadlinesBriefing