Meeting Abstract
Research is presented which has not actually been done yet. Graphs are shown depicting correlations we don’t know exist yet, and whose existence should really not be postulated before-hand for fear of biasing the statistics. Unexpected results are presented which dramatically confirm the expected correlations that might exist on the presented graphs. Several prominent researchers are referred to by their first names proving the authors really know what they are doing. Papers supporting the presented research are discussed with lavish praise, while those disputing the work are not mentioned due to the severe time limitation. The presenting authors will get so caught up in what is being said that they may actually start to believe in it, and also believe that the audience’s interest demands that the talk run longer than the appointed time limit. Audience members will then clap regardless of whether or not they understood the talk, or could pronounce its title. The researchers will then add a citation of the talk to their resumes and reflect on the increased possibility of having their grant applications accepted.
[Copyright 1987 by Robert J. Nemiroff]
Taken some weeks ago from Robert J. Nemiroff’s Comedy of Science webpage (which is – most unfortunately – not longer available online).
January 3rd, 2007 09:40
Lass mich raten: Du hast gerade einen abstract zur DPG geschickt?
January 3rd, 2007 12:47
Nicht schlecht der Tipp. War zwar schon vor Weihanchten gewesen, aber exakt das war der Anlass, mich über diesen generischen Abstract Nemiroffs zu freuen.
January 4th, 2007 15:27
Das war nur halb geraten, mein Abstract für die DPG folgte ähnlichen Leitideen.