3 ms·
This article seems like it should have been flagged as part of political detox week, as it's promoting more emotional than useful discussions. I do think your
by TheCowboy 10y ago
This article seems like it should have been flagged as part of political detox week, as it's promoting more emotional than useful discussions.
I do think your first sentence has some truth, but I wouldn't use Thiel as a reference as it just seems to be an appeal to emotion.
Is there any evidence backing up Thiel's assertion? It sounds like romanticizing the past and idealizing eccentricity. It's also begging the question that eccentric/idiosyncratic people make the best scientists.
- Fede_V 10y agoI don't think I should have said 'that's exactly right' - I should have said 'that's partially right'. The funding climate right now is very competitive, and the ability to obtain funds is more important than it's ever been. For another example, here is Peter Higgs (the guy who developed the theory that predicted the boson) discussing modern science: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-boson-academic-system https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-.... As far as quantitative data about trends in scientific funding - we have lots of data showing that the funding climate is the worse it's ever been, but I wouldn't even know how to quantitatively prove that being 'strategic' is more important now than it was in the past.