Japan lab weighing retraction of stem cell paper

[legion]

Stripping her of her Ph.D. would only make sense if the work in her dissertation was demonstrably and unambiguously bogus.

It sounds like she went to the farm with copy/paste on others work. Related or not, she doesn't deserve something she didn't actually earn.

I wonder how widespread that is.

Like the Olympic logo is just the tip of the iceberg on the copying of creative ideas.

[Russell]

The problem with the treatment she got from Waseda is that they gave her 1 year to correct her thesis, and when she did that, they refused her anyway. I know, she dragged Waseda's name through the mud, but if they felt she was undeserving, they should have told her from the beginning, without giving her a (fake) chance.

[Takechanpoo]

the bigger Precuneus is, the happier you are

Happiness is a subjective experience that is an ultimate goal for humans. Psychological studies have shown that subjective happiness can be measured reliably and consists of emotional and cognitive components. However, the neural substrates of subjective happiness remain unclear. To investigate this issue, we used structural magnetic resonance imaging and questionnaires that assessed subjective happiness, the intensity of positive and negative emotional experiences,and purpose in life. We found a positive relationship between the subjective happiness score and gray matter volume in the right precuneus. Moreover, the same region showed an association with the combined positive and negative emotional intensity and purpose in life scores. Our findings suggest that the precuneus mediates subjective happiness by integrating the emotional and cognitive components of happiness.

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep16891
http://www.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ja/research/re ... 120_1.html

[matsuki]

Stripping her of her Ph.D. would only make sense if the work in her dissertation was demonstrably and unambiguously bogus.

It sounds like she went to the farm with copy/paste on others work. Related or not, she doesn't deserve something she didn't actually earn.

I wonder how widespread that is.

Like the Olympic logo is just the tip of the iceberg on the copying of creative ideas.

The grrl I've been after for awhile is a University medical researcher....she says that once this shit blew up, they had to go through a series of meetings and shit and it's been since cracked down on. Before that, cut and paste "authoring" and "borrowing" images was so common, it was practically SOP.

The problem with the treatment she got from Waseda is that they gave her 1 year to correct her thesis, and when she did that, they refused her anyway. I know, she dragged Waseda's name through the mud, but if they felt she was undeserving, they should have told her from the beginning, without giving her a (fake) chance.

In that case, I agree, they shouldn't have offered her a "chance."

[Russell]

Stripping her of her Ph.D. would only make sense if the work in her dissertation was demonstrably and unambiguously bogus.

It sounds like she went to the farm with copy/paste on others work. Related or not, she doesn't deserve something she didn't actually earn.

I wonder how widespread that is.

Like the Olympic logo is just the tip of the iceberg on the copying of creative ideas.

The grrl I've been after for awhile is a University medical researcher....she says that once this shit blew up, they had to go through a series of meetings and shit and it's been since cracked down on. Before that, cut and paste "authoring" and "borrowing" images was so common, it was practically SOP.

Yep, as far as I know all researchers employed in Japan are required to undergo training to avoid these problems in the future, in particular if they receive external funding.

[Russell]

the bigger Precuneus is, the happier you are

Happiness is a subjective experience that is an ultimate goal for humans. Psychological studies have shown that subjective happiness can be measured reliably and consists of emotional and cognitive components. However, the neural substrates of subjective happiness remain unclear. To investigate this issue, we used structural magnetic resonance imaging and questionnaires that assessed subjective happiness, the intensity of positive and negative emotional experiences,and purpose in life. We found a positive relationship between the subjective happiness score and gray matter volume in the right precuneus. Moreover, the same region showed an association with the combined positive and negative emotional intensity and purpose in life scores. Our findings suggest that the precuneus mediates subjective happiness by integrating the emotional and cognitive components of happiness.

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep16891
http://www.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ja/research/re ... 120_1.html

You forgot some quotes.

Our study has several limitations, some of which may account for the discrepancies between our results and those of previous studies. First, although the precuneus was the only brain region significantly associated with subjective happiness in our study, several previous functional imaging studies found that other brain regions, such as the anterior cingulate gyrus and amygdala, were active during the induction of happy emotions. This disparity may be explained by the methodological differences among the studies when measuring hemodynamic responses versus gray matter volumes. Alternatively, it may be that our small sample size lacked the power to detect an association of subjective happiness with other brain regions. Consistent with this notion, we found non-significant negative associations between subjective happiness and various brain regions, such as the insular cortex, previously reported to be involved in negative emotional states. Future studies with a larger sample size may reveal the involvement of other brain regions and neural networks in the experience of subjective happiness.

Second, although we found that the cognitive and emotional components of happiness were associated with precuneus volume, recent structural MRI studies using a different methodology to investigate the structural neural substrates of the cognitive component of happiness reported different findings. Specifically, these studies found that eudaimonic well-being was positively associated with right insular cortex volume and that life satisfaction was positively associated with right parahippocampal gyrus volume and negatively associated with left ventromedial prefrontal cortex and left precuneus volumes. We speculate that the cognitive component of happiness may contain multiple subcomponents and our use of a single purpose-of-life measure may not tap into all of these subcomponents. Further studies are needed to clarify the relationships between cognitive subcomponents of happiness and their associations with structural neural substrates.

Finally, the present study assessed the psychological ratings of the participants after the MRI scans and this procedure may not have been ideal for the measurement of subjective happiness as a stable construct. It is possible that the MRI acquisition procedure altered the transient mood of some participants which, in turn, had a confounding effect on the subjective happiness ratings. Future research that measures subjective happiness under calm conditions independently from MRI scanning would be preferable for rigorously examining the structural neural substrates of subjective happiness.

Dunno why they did those psychological tests after the MRI scans. Usually they do them before.

I really don't understand how this paper got into Nature.

[matsuki]

I really don't understand how this paper got into Nature.

Was one of the team female and a "science field 10?"

[wagyl]

Matsuki, stop adding your LINE stickers to your posts!

[matsuki]

If only I could get a waving dildo in LINE....

[Russell]

I really don't understand how this paper got into Nature.

Was one of the team female and a "science field 10?"

There is one female co-author, but she is not the first author.

BTW, now I notice that the journal is not Nature, but "Scientific Reports", which is valuated much lower than Nature. It is in the Nature Publishing Group, which is why it shows up as Nature.

[Takechanpoo]

count down to present Shinichi Mochizuki, Kyoto Univ. surely solved ABC conjecture
https://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/pers ... t-sch.html

PN2013111501002302.-.-.CI0003.jpg

The math world was shaken to its foundation in 2012 when Shinichi Mochizuki released a 500-page solution to a 27-year-old problem that's stumped the greatest minds in the field for years. Mochizuki may have solved the famous problem, but in the process he created a whole new theory of math. That means anybody who wants to prove Mochizuki's work will have to learn this new theory before they can look at his proposed solution to the so-called ABC conjecture. This conundrum is almost as interesting as the implications of Mochizuki's work, according to a new report published by Nature.

After three years, nobody is close to proving Mochizuki right or wrong, according to Nature. The report noted that just four mathematicians have been able to get through his proof. Mochizuki has not endeared himself to the international math community by lecturing only in Japanese -- despite the fact he speaks English fluently -- while writing some rather scathing updates about his "inter-universal Teichmuller theory." A Clay Mathematics Institute workshop conducted at Oxford University in December will be the first on the IUT theory held outside Japan. Mochizuki will answer questions via Skype.

http://www.ibtimes.com/pulse/shinichi-m ... it-2135190

animation explaining his theory, Inter-universal Teichmüller theory
https://twitter.com/math_jin/status/651638997496655872
https://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/pers ... anima.html

[kurogane]

The problem with the treatment she got from Waseda is that they gave her 1 year to correct her thesis, and when she did that, they refused her anyway. I know, she dragged Waseda's name through the mud, but if they felt she was undeserving, they should have told her from the beginning, without giving her a (fake) chance.

Nicely put. That sort of disingenuity would constitute a court case in a lot of countries. What she did was shameful, but not all that much more than the way she has been thrown to the wolves to absolve the tribal elders for having pushed her through the maze without letting her find her own way.

Dunno why they did those psychological tests after the MRI scans. Usually they do them before.

I really don't understand how this paper got into Nature.[/quote]

I was in Social Sciences, but I was often surprised at how fully they embrace confirmation bias as legitimate evidence or proof. It was one of the strongest signs they don't do logic like we think of it, and that the bases of their scientific rationality is remarkably different. Or do you think your Japanese colleagues would find the methodology shoddy, or at least questionable? From what little I saw at Kyoto this sort of soft fuzzy approach in the social neurological or social cognitive fields was quite prevalent. Or I simply don't know enough about experimental modelling, which we can't do anyways.

[matsuki]

Mochizuki has not endeared himself to the international math community by lecturing only in Japanese -- despite the fact he speaks English fluently -- while writing some rather scathing updates about his "inter-universal Teichmuller theory."

Is this a setup for some "lost in translation" crutch to fall back on if his whole theory is disproved?

[Mike Oxlong]

I was in Social Sciences, but I was often surprised at how fully they embrace confirmation bias as legitimate evidence or proof. It was one of the strongest signs they don't do logic like we think of it, and that the bases of their scientific rationality is remarkably different. Or do you think your Japanese colleagues would find the methodology shoddy, or at least questionable? From what little I saw at Kyoto this sort of soft fuzzy approach in the social neurological or social cognitive fields was quite prevalent. Or I simply don't know enough about experimental modelling, which we can't do anyways.

Why Do Some People Find Deepak Chopra Quotes Deep And Not Dung?

In what may well be the first-ever paper to evaluate susceptibility to pseudo-profound BS, Gordon Pennycook and colleagues have found that people who are more susceptible to BS score lower for verbal and fluid intelligence, are more prone to “conspiratorial ideation,” and more likely to “endorse complementary and alternative medicine.” Their paper, “On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit,” was published in November in the journal Judgment and Decision Making.

To reach their conclusions, the authors conducted a series of studies in which they presented participants with sentences that had recognizable English syntax but were simply a series of randomly organized buzzwords. Examples of these pseudo-profound statements include “Hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract beauty,” a totally meaningless sentence that appears to be profound because it uses buzzwords like “hidden” and “transforms” and “abstract” and “beauty.” Indeed, rearranging the same words can yield a similarly pseudo-profound statement: “Abstract meaning transforms unparalleled hidden beauty.”

For real-world examples, the authors turned to Twitter, which they describe as “particularly conducive to the promulgation” of BS because of its 140-character limit. As their example of choice, they sought out Deepak Chopra’s tweets, for reasons that should be obvious. If they aren’t, here’s a sample Chopra tweet: “Attention and intention are the mechanics of manifestation.” What they left out of the quote is the hashtag Chopra added: “#cosmicconsciousness.” Reactions to the tweet were mixed.

To determine factors that might make someone susceptible to reading that Chopra tweet and finding meaning in it, Pennycook and co-authors evaluated participants’ analytical thinking, tendency to confuse one knowledge category with another, such as viewing the material as spiritual, and tendency to hold implausible beliefs. In a series of studies, the authors presented participants with randomly assembled pseudo-profound statements, Deepak Chopra tweets, and tests of cognitive and reasoning ability along with several scales to evaluate factors such as personal beliefs and a tendency to conspiracy ideation.

In general, the profoundness ratings that participants gave the BS statements were very similar to those they gave to Chopra’s tweets.

In addition to looking into what makes people susceptible to finding BS statements profound, the authors also looked at what factors make others have hypersensitive BS detectors, or the cognitive measures that “inoculate against bullshit,” as they put it. To measure this feature, they looked at factors associated with those who rated legitimate quotations as far more profound than pseudo-profound BS. Those folks were more likely to have an analytic cognitive style and be skeptical about paranormal phenomena.

The authors also draw an interesting distinction between types of open-mindedness, one that might explain why people who are on the same side of the aisle politically can have very different responses to pseudoscience. Pennycook and colleagues contrast reflexive or uncritical open-mindedness, in which a person is accepting of information but doesn’t pause to evaluate inherent conflicts or other features, and reflective or active open-mindedness, in which a person seeks information for the purpose of critical thinking.

I’m sure that much of the coverage of this publication will focus on the inherent hilarity of an entire academic paper devoted to assessing susceptibility to bullshit and the use of a potty word in a study report that includes priceless sentences such as, “Bullshit comes in many forms and we have focused on only one type,” and “Bullshit is not only common; it is popular. Chopra is, of course, just one example among many,” and “This is not to say that everything Deepak Chopra has written is bullshit.” It must have been fun to write and fascinating to do.

But what emerges from this seemingly tongue-in-cheek research—the first author is pretty pleased at having used the word “bullshit” ~200 times in the paper—is something more, um, profound than might be expected. The emerging picture is that people have divergent psychological profiles that make them more or less likely to believe in certain phenomena, buy into conspiracy theories, embrace the language and promises of alternative medicine over conventional medicine, and find meaning in a meaningless series of profound-sounding words.

These findings could very well be confirmation of what those who market certain products already know, that words that sound truthy, deep, and believable are far more compelling to their target audience than terms like “data” and “evidence.” But more profoundly (sorry), this kind of tendency also feeds into broadly resonating societal effects, such as the susceptibilities that led—and still lead—some people to chase false ‘cures’ for everything from autism to cancer, to follow false prophets who promise them transformation and revelation of hidden beauty while giving them nothing, and to confuse categories of existence and believe that the material is magical. And that is deeply, deeply important to understand.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillin ... -not-dung/

[Coligny]

Do Deepak Chopra also say "spastic" a lot ?

[kurogane]

-- despite the fact he speaks English fluently --

Is this a setup for some "lost in translation" crutch to fall back on if his whole theory is disproved?

Or is it a typically gross exaggeration of his actual English ability and confidence to lecture in a foreign language when he speaks the 9th most commonly spoken language fluently? How often have you heard that a Japanese "speaks English fluently" only to find out they don't, and perhaps never even claimed to? What is this objection people have against the use of professional interpreters to accurately convey complex subject matter (assuming that's how he conveys his ideas to non-Japanese speaking audiences)? I find the rhubarb level linguistic stupidity of far too many English speakers to be profoundly spastic. It's like they believe it's a natural language, not an imposed one.

BTW, everybody that has ever attended my alma mater in Kyoto "speaks English fluently" too. How could they ever
have gained admittance if they didn't?

[Russell]

count down to present Shinichi Mochizuki, Kyoto Univ. surely solved ABC conjecture
https://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/pers ... t-sch.html

PN2013111501002302.-.-.CI0003.jpg

The math world was shaken to its foundation in 2012 when Shinichi Mochizuki released a 500-page solution to a 27-year-old problem that's stumped the greatest minds in the field for years. Mochizuki may have solved the famous problem, but in the process he created a whole new theory of math. That means anybody who wants to prove Mochizuki's work will have to learn this new theory before they can look at his proposed solution to the so-called ABC conjecture. This conundrum is almost as interesting as the implications of Mochizuki's work, according to a new report published by Nature.

After three years, nobody is close to proving Mochizuki right or wrong, according to Nature. The report noted that just four mathematicians have been able to get through his proof. Mochizuki has not endeared himself to the international math community by lecturing only in Japanese -- despite the fact he speaks English fluently -- while writing some rather scathing updates about his "inter-universal Teichmuller theory." A Clay Mathematics Institute workshop conducted at Oxford University in December will be the first on the IUT theory held outside Japan. Mochizuki will answer questions via Skype.

http://www.ibtimes.com/pulse/shinichi-m ... it-2135190

animation explaining his theory, Inter-universal Teichmüller theory
https://twitter.com/math_jin/status/651638997496655872
https://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/pers ... anima.html

Dunno why he doesn't go abroad to explain his proof. May be something personal. Mathematicians are kind of a strange breed.

It is not uncommon that it takes years to verify a proof, such as Wiles' proof of Fermat's last theorem, which turned out to be incorrect at first, until he worked some more on it and repaired it.

Anyway, this topic does not belong in this thread. He is not accused of scientific misconduct. He just proposed his own original solution to a difficult problem, and this solution's correctness is as yet unverified.

[Takechanpoo]

Dunno why he doesn't go abroad to explain his proof. May be something personal. Mathematicians are kind of a strange breed.

It is not uncommon that it takes years to verify a proof, such as Wiles' proof of Fermat's last theorem, which turned out to be incorrect at first, until he worked some more on it and repaired it.

Anyway, this topic does not belong in this thread. He is not accused of scientific misconduct. He just proposed his own original solution to a difficult problem, and this solution's correctness is as yet unverified.

he spent his boyhood in new york when Japan-US economic friction was reaching the peak of severity.
i guess his twisted attitude has something to do with it....

[kurogane]

Anyway, this topic does not belong in this thread. He is not accused of scientific misconduct. .

Well put. Thanks for clarifying that. Good points about mathematics and mathematicians.

[matsuki]

-- despite the fact he speaks English fluently --

Is this a setup for some "lost in translation" crutch to fall back on if his whole theory is disproved?

Or is it a typically gross exaggeration of his actual English ability and confidence to lecture in a foreign language when he speaks the 9th most commonly spoken language fluently? How often have you heard that a Japanese "speaks English fluently" only to find out they don't, and perhaps never even claimed to? What is this objection people have against the use of professional interpreters to accurately convey complex subject matter (assuming that's how he conveys his ideas to non-Japanese speaking audiences)? I find the rhubarb level linguistic stupidity of far too many English speakers to be profoundly spastic. It's like they believe it's a natural language, not an imposed one.

BTW, everybody that has ever attended my alma mater in Kyoto "speaks English fluently" too. How could they ever
have gained admittance if they didn't?

Totally plausible and get what you're saying...but, how many times have we seen those that really can't speak English give speeches or presentations? Conversation is one thing, reading off cards or memorizing something is much easier. (Though if Take is right and he grew up in the US, his English may actually be quite fluent)

[Samurai_Jerk]

Though if Take is right and he grew up in the US, his English may actually be quite fluent

It also depends one when he was there. I used to know a Japanese girl who spent a big chunk of her childhood in the US but came back to Japan before junior high and never really used English again. When I used to hang out with her she was in her late 20's. Her pronunciation was great and her accent was deceptively natural but she couldn't carry on a conversation beyond the basics.

[kurogane]

Totally plausible and get what you're saying...but, how many times have we seen those that really can't speak English give speeches or presentations? Conversation is one thing, reading off cards or memorizing something is much easier. (Though if Take is right and he grew up in the US, his English may actually be quite fluent)

Right, but what I take issue with is this insidious idea that he needs to present his work in English if he can, as though it's a moral duty rather than a concession to the One Language fascists (with whom you can occasionally appear to sympathise, btw). Can or cannot, there is only do, and he chooses to do not. That is what professional interpreters and translators are there for. I can disquisite for hours in Japanese on the practical social dynamics of the workings of acephalic differential segmentary opposition amongst rural highlanders in a postmodern service economy if necessary, but I prefer to do it in English, which is the language in which I grasped and internalised it. The idea that if he can he should is morally disgusting. And as Russell noted, he might well be well weird, even if he has a beautiful mind.

BTW, the guys that don't speak it but present in English anyways are the ones I went to Kyoto with That should be strongly discouraged. It's a ranking ploy for internal consumption more than a genuine effort to share knowledge.

It also depends one when he was there. I used to know a Japanese girl who spent a big chunk of her childhood in the US but came back to Japan before junior high and never really used English again. When I used to hang out with her she was in her late 20's. Her pronunciation was great and her accent was deceptively natural but she couldn't carry on a conversation beyond the basics.

Yes. I know many of Them as well. I think they call it fossilised ability. The ones I knew in Kyoto came back to Japan by age 15-ish, never used it much again, and seemed perfectly happy with that. As necessary they could and did speak English, but were perfectly happy living their lives in their native language. And if you speak Japanese properly there's a sort of natural empathy that works great as panty remover. And if you have been here longer than 2 years and still don't it works as a pussy shrinking chastity belt that locks down tight. I like those kids. They often have a different take on life that doesn't necessarily require Eigoism to appreciate it.

Insisting that people speak a certain language is dickish at best, and in scientific circles it is fascistic stupidity that must be crushed like the skull of a heretic. Bring in the Comfy Chairs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Takechanpoo]

Mochizuki spent in merica from 5 year old to 23 year old, except for only a year of 1st grade of j-junior high school.
probably he is better at english than japanese, contrary to you dudes expectations.
and also probably he got bullied so hard in his teenage days there.

c7f293c2.jpg

and he probably is a hafu, judging from his skeletal structure.
if his proof is verified officially, he will be a super star among hafu circle.

[Salty]

Mochizuki spent in merica ...

But earlier you said `new york` - which isn`t `merica by a long shot... Real a#&holes, with hyper inflated egos.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Mochizuki spent in merica ...

But earlier you said `new york` - which isn`t `merica by a long shot... Real a#&holes, with hyper inflated egos.

Yeah, Buffalo is a shithole.

[matsuki]

Right, but what I take issue with is this insidious idea that he needs to present his work in English if he can, as though it's a moral duty rather than a concession to the One Language fascists (with whom you can occasionally appear to sympathise, btw). Can or cannot, there is only do, and he chooses to do not. That is what professional interpreters and translators are there for. I can disquisite for hours in Japanese on the practical social dynamics of the workings of acephalic differential segmentary opposition amongst rural highlanders in a postmodern service economy if necessary, but I prefer to do it in English, which is the language in which I grasped and internalised it. The idea that if he can he should is morally disgusting. And as Russell noted, he might well be well weird, even if he has a beautiful mind.

Kuroooooo, even more than the interpretation gigs I get, we're talkin' about some next level specialized stuff to interpret...I doubt anyone is more qualified to do his thing in English than himself. As to the one language facists, I'm not throwing myself in with that lot but I will say the "International Science community" has made English the language of choice for a reason...and it just so happens to be the language of all his mathematical schoolin'....so I'd find it hard to believe "he's not comfortable doing a presentation in English" is a legit excuse for turning down presentation requests in the eigosphere. (not that I think he's morally obligated to do it in English but it does seem the norm and would help progress the field, yes??

As the months pass, the silence has also begun to call into question a basic premise of mathematical academia. Duchin explains the mainstream view this way: “Proofs are right or wrong. The community passes verdict.”

This foundational stone is one that mathematicians are proud of. The community works together; they are not cut-throat or competitive. Colleagues check each other’s work, spending hours upon hours verifying that a peer got it right. This behavior is not just altruistic, but also necessary: unlike in medical science, where you know you’re right if the patient is cured, or in engineering, where the rocket either launches or it doesn’t, theoretical math, better known as “pure” math, has no physical, visible standard. It is entirely based on logic. To know you’re right means you need someone else, preferably many other people, to walk in your footsteps and confirm that every step was made on solid ground. A proof in a vacuum is no proof at all.

The real issue here isn't one about language,he made a mountain of papers, a claim, and isn't willing to explain (help?) to others the claim and how best to navigate his mountain of papers. Only lash out at any claims of flaws.

Mochizuki was not following community standards. Usually, they said, mathematicians discuss their findings with their colleagues. Normally, they publish pre-prints to widely respected online forums. Then they submit their papers to the Annals of Mathematics, where papers are refereed by eminent mathematicians before publication. Mochizuki was bucking the trend. He was, according to his peers, “unorthodox.”

But what roused their ire most was Mochizuki’s refusal to lecture. Usually, after publication, a mathematician lectures on his papers, travelling to various universities to explain his work and answer questions from his colleagues. Mochizuki has turned down multiple invitations.

snip

As for Mochizuki, who has refused all media requests, who seems so reluctant to promote even his own work, one has to wonder if he is even aware of the storm he has created.

On his website, one of the only photos of Mochizuki available on the Internet shows a middle-aged man with old-fashioned 90’s style glasses, staring up and out, somewhere over our heads. A self-given title runs over his head. It is not “mathematician” but, rather, “Inter-universal Geometer.”

What does it mean? His website offers no clues. There are his papers, thousands of pages long, reams upon reams of dense mathematics. His resume is spare and formal. He reports his marital status as “Single (never married).” And then there is a page called Thoughts of Shinichi Mochizuki, which has only 17 entries. “I would like to report on my recent progress,” he writes, February 2009. “Let me report on my progress,” October 2009. “Let me report on my progress,” April 2010, June 2011, January 2012. Then follows math-speak. It is hard to tell if he is excited, daunted, frustrated, or enthralled.

Mochizuki has reported all this progress for years, but where is he going? This “inter-universal geometer,” this possible genius, may have found the key that would redefine number theory as we know it. He has, perhaps, charted a new path into the dark unknown of mathematics. But for now, his footsteps are untraceable. Wherever he is going, he seems to be travelling alone.

https://www.quora.com/How-come-only-Shi ... h-language

Sounds like he's either a super hermit or he is just paranoid about someone beating him to the punch if he follows convention.

[kurogane]

What is with this spazztard desperate eagerness of the Take typoids to believe that Japanese are subject to more bullying or abuse in the states (by which I mean The Rest of the World)???? It reminds me of spazzy Eikaiwa types that bang on about racism in Japan.

angrily spouting newbie: Japanese keep treating me as though I am not truly one of them. I've never been a minority in my life!!!!!!!!!!!

laughing longtermer: well, you are one now. Get used to it, Cletis.

angrily spouting newbie: But that's RACISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Especially that YouTubetard Ryan Boundless. I laughed at his handle, but 2 minutes of his videos and I realised it was totally appropriate: his BS really is just that. Plus he has an entire video on cooking proper black beans but the fucking nemoid doesn't even say where he got them.

[Russell]

Right, but what I take issue with is this insidious idea that he needs to present his work in English if he can, as though it's a moral duty rather than a concession to the One Language fascists (with whom you can occasionally appear to sympathise, btw). Can or cannot, there is only do, and he chooses to do not. That is what professional interpreters and translators are there for. I can disquisite for hours in Japanese on the practical social dynamics of the workings of acephalic differential segmentary opposition amongst rural highlanders in a postmodern service economy if necessary, but I prefer to do it in English, which is the language in which I grasped and internalised it. The idea that if he can he should is morally disgusting. And as Russell noted, he might well be well weird, even if he has a beautiful mind.

Kuroooooo, even more than the interpretation gigs I get, we're talkin' about some next level specialized stuff to interpret...I doubt anyone is more qualified to do his thing in English than himself. As to the one language facists, I'm not throwing myself in with that lot but I will say the "International Science community" has made English the language of choice for a reason...and it just so happens to be the language of all his mathematical schoolin'....so I'd find it hard to believe "he's not comfortable doing a presentation in English" is a legit excuse for turning down presentation requests in the eigosphere. (not that I think he's morally obligated to do it in English but it does seem the norm and would help progress the field, yes??

As the months pass, the silence has also begun to call into question a basic premise of mathematical academia. Duchin explains the mainstream view this way: “Proofs are right or wrong. The community passes verdict.”

This foundational stone is one that mathematicians are proud of. The community works together; they are not cut-throat or competitive. Colleagues check each other’s work, spending hours upon hours verifying that a peer got it right. This behavior is not just altruistic, but also necessary: unlike in medical science, where you know you’re right if the patient is cured, or in engineering, where the rocket either launches or it doesn’t, theoretical math, better known as “pure” math, has no physical, visible standard. It is entirely based on logic. To know you’re right means you need someone else, preferably many other people, to walk in your footsteps and confirm that every step was made on solid ground. A proof in a vacuum is no proof at all.

The real issue here isn't one about language,he made a mountain of papers, a claim, and isn't willing to explain (help?) to others the claim and how best to navigate his mountain of papers. Only lash out at any claims of flaws.

Mochizuki was not following community standards. Usually, they said, mathematicians discuss their findings with their colleagues. Normally, they publish pre-prints to widely respected online forums. Then they submit their papers to the Annals of Mathematics, where papers are refereed by eminent mathematicians before publication. Mochizuki was bucking the trend. He was, according to his peers, “unorthodox.”

But what roused their ire most was Mochizuki’s refusal to lecture. Usually, after publication, a mathematician lectures on his papers, travelling to various universities to explain his work and answer questions from his colleagues. Mochizuki has turned down multiple invitations.

snip

As for Mochizuki, who has refused all media requests, who seems so reluctant to promote even his own work, one has to wonder if he is even aware of the storm he has created.

On his website, one of the only photos of Mochizuki available on the Internet shows a middle-aged man with old-fashioned 90’s style glasses, staring up and out, somewhere over our heads. A self-given title runs over his head. It is not “mathematician” but, rather, “Inter-universal Geometer.”

What does it mean? His website offers no clues. There are his papers, thousands of pages long, reams upon reams of dense mathematics. His resume is spare and formal. He reports his marital status as “Single (never married).” And then there is a page called Thoughts of Shinichi Mochizuki, which has only 17 entries. “I would like to report on my recent progress,” he writes, February 2009. “Let me report on my progress,” October 2009. “Let me report on my progress,” April 2010, June 2011, January 2012. Then follows math-speak. It is hard to tell if he is excited, daunted, frustrated, or enthralled.

Mochizuki has reported all this progress for years, but where is he going? This “inter-universal geometer,” this possible genius, may have found the key that would redefine number theory as we know it. He has, perhaps, charted a new path into the dark unknown of mathematics. But for now, his footsteps are untraceable. Wherever he is going, he seems to be travelling alone.

https://www.quora.com/How-come-only-Shi ... h-language

Sounds like he's either a super hermit or he is just paranoid about someone beating him to the punch if he follows convention.

Good post, Matsuki.

Yep, English is the International Scientific Language. One is better prepared to use it as a scientist.

If you don't, you risk being ignored, like Eiji Osawa who published the first paper on Buckminsterfullerene in Japanese in 1970. In 1996, Harold Kroto, Robert Curl, and Richard Smalley received the Nobel prize in Chemistry for their discovery of this molecule.

Back to Mathematicians, Mochizuki is actually quite normal compared to Grigori Perelman.

In 1994, Perelman proved the soul conjecture. In 2003, he proved Thurston's geometrization conjecture. This consequently solved in the affirmative the Poincaré conjecture, posed in 1904, which before its solution was viewed as one of the most important and difficult open problems in topology.

In August 2006, Perelman was awarded the Fields Medal for "his contributions to geometry and his revolutionary insights into the analytical and geometric structure of the Ricci flow." Perelman declined to accept the award or to appear at the congress, stating: "I'm not interested in money or fame; I don't want to be on display like an animal in a zoo." On 22 December 2006, the scientific journal Science recognized Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture as the scientific "Breakthrough of the Year", the first such recognition in the area of mathematics.

On 18 March 2010, it was announced that he had met the criteria to receive the first Clay Millennium Prize for resolution of the Poincaré conjecture. On 1 July 2010, he turned down the prize of one million dollars, saying that he considered the award unfair and that his contribution to solving the Poincaré conjecture was no greater than that of Richard Hamilton, the mathematician who pioneered Ricci flow with the aim of attacking the conjecture. He also turned down the prestigious prize of the European Mathematical Society.

Note, the Fields Medal is the highest award in Math.

[Takechanpoo]

Characterization of an Injury Induced Population of Muscle-Derived Stem Cell-Like Cells

The existence of pluripotent-like cells in adult tissues has been a matter of debate for years,
since inconsistent results have been reported by various groups9,10,11,12,13,14,15;
however, no study thus far has proven that such pluripotent stem cells can arise from differentiated somatic tissues.
In this study we reveal that cellular reprogramming can be initiated by the strong stimuli that occurs when skeletal muscle is injured;
thus, we were able to isolate reprogrammed iMuSCs from the injured skeletal muscle.

........

13.
Obokata, H. et al. The potential of stem cells in adult tissues representative of the three germ layers. Tissue Eng Part A 17, 607-615 (2011).

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep17355

some j-guys started insisting that obokata scandal was a conspiracy to rip off the patent of STAP from japan..........


wait....already this gaijin dude..

14499053690001.jpg

"technology squashed by dark rulers"
http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E9%97%87%E3%81 ... 4781612830

[Russell]

Characterization of an Injury Induced Population of Muscle-Derived Stem Cell-Like Cells

The existence of pluripotent-like cells in adult tissues has been a matter of debate for years,
since inconsistent results have been reported by various groups9,10,11,12,13,14,15;
however, no study thus far has proven that such pluripotent stem cells can arise from differentiated somatic tissues.
In this study we reveal that cellular reprogramming can be initiated by the strong stimuli that occurs when skeletal muscle is injured;
thus, we were able to isolate reprogrammed iMuSCs from the injured skeletal muscle.

........

13.
Obokata, H. et al. The potential of stem cells in adult tissues representative of the three germ layers. Tissue Eng Part A 17, 607-615 (2011).

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep17355

some j-guys started insisting that obokata scandal was a conspiracy to rip off the patent of STAP from japan..........

I am almost certain that is not the case.

However, it looks like that paper [13] was written when Obokata was working towards her Ph.D. Apparently, it was not withdrawn, and that may be because it is not about STAP cells.

Anyway, I think she was treated not entirely fair by Waseda.