Discussion: Area under a curve

Doesn't seem to groundbreaking to me. I feel like I learned that in secondary school. I guess it is from 1994.

But to what accuracy? She gets it to within 0.4%, or something like that.

How did you stumble across this?

It's a highly cited paper. Why wouldn't I?

How does it relate to me?

I feel like I'm missing something here.

Ah! The fresh pastures of transdisciplinary science!

Impressively, she wrote it...

Another option:
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/

Medical research discovers integration, gets 75 [sic] citations.

Update - now at 249 citations.

https://fliptomato.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/medica...

Fresh pastures are calling....

As a reviewer I've rejected papers which found respectively, in effect, that (a) spring is colder than summer and (b) Scotland is colder than England. Both were subsequently published in other less discriminating journals.

today's daily Calvin and Hobbes
https://twitter.com/CalvinandHobb3s/status/6129984...

I've rejected a paper with the only finding that soil gets wetter immediately following rain.

I also wrote a letter to Nature explaining the ecosystem carbon modelling paper just published in their journal failed to account for basic year 1 hydrology and was wrong. I was then told by Nature that I was naive and they let the Harvard led paper stick. Ive enjoyed trashing it the last six years at conferences.

Good interdisciplinary researchers need to know a little about a lot and knowing how to (dare I say it) integrate them together. It certainly is not about ignoring other fields completely, especially math and physics. But it happens far too often.

Ok so I wasn't missing anything.

An appropriate response, from xkcd: