#### [[High level pattern matching as meaningfulness of PHD]] --- PHD as high-level pattern-matching gestalt perspective for Great Conversation <disclaimer: former real scientist> Science is a profession like others. When you are earning your Ph.D. you learn to think about the field by reading papers and discussing with peers and colleagues, yes. The intro of a well-structured research paper should follow this pattern: - This is a really important topic and here is why. - What is the current state of the art in this field? (this comes from reading 100-1000 publications on the topic and selecting the 5-10 most relevant to the next point). HOWEVER, the state of the art leaves this question unanswered. - Here are some reasons why the idea in this paper can help answer that question (cite another 3-10 papers). - Our hypothesis is that XXX can answer the important unanswered question (where X is derived from the prior section). So, what I am getting at, a scientific publication is part of a conversation. When I’m citing the 5-10 papers to summarize the state of the art, I’m assuming the reader has read 50% of the 100-1000 papers which I also read, and knows where the 5-10 which I cite fit into that broader context. So any paper, in isolation, only has a fraction of its meaning in the publication. The real information is the surrounding context. Pro tip: if I’m reading a paper and want to understand it better, I also read one or two of the papers it cites, and one or two papers which cite it. Also, it can take a few times through before I start to understand what the author is trying to say. reply stevenbedrick 5 hours ago | root | parent | next [–] Exactly! Scientific papers are not meant to stand on their own — they are pieces of a much larger jigsaw puzzle. In order to make heads or tails out of a paper, one really needs to have a sense of where the paper fits into its larger picture. Building up necessary base of knowledge to develop that sense, both in terms of explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge, is part of what a PhD student is actually doing while they are working on their PhD, and is part of why the process takes as long as it does. Also, the mechanical process of effectively reading a paper is highly non-linear, and is a skill in and of itself. In a lot of ways, it is more akin to high-level pattern matching than it is to more “normal” reading. At least at my institution, it is something that we actually teach our students to do in formal ways (the obligatory “How to read a scientific paper” lecture during the first term or two) and then make them practice over and over again for years (journal clubs, etc.). The original author eventually figured this out, which is to their credit. --- Tags: Reference: Related: [[Zettelkasten]] [[How to write a scholarly essay]]