3 ms·

I would understand that viewpoint if scientists made serious money, but they don't. If they are intelligent and unscrupulous there are MUCH better scams to purs

by splawn 10y ago

I would understand that viewpoint if scientists made serious money, but they don't. If they are intelligent and unscrupulous there are MUCH better scams to pursue.

LyndsySimon 10y ago
Scientists - or rather, researchers - don't make huge amounts of money, but it does often require huge amounts of money to facilitate their work. It's not uncommon to see a researcher at a university in the US who makes $80-$120k per year apply for and obtain a grant that's worth tens of millions of dollars to the university.
schoen 10y ago
It's true that working on research or activism whose value you doubt may not make for an especially lucrative scam. On the other hand, probably a lot of activities of questionable value, including some scientific research, were begun in good faith by people who found them interesting, exciting, or enjoyable. After becoming well-connected experts in their communities, they now have established careers and a life situation that particularly qualifies them to continue those careers, and a corresponding incentive to believe and argue that their careers are relevant and important. I don't think this is the case with climate researchers in particular; I'm just considering the question of why people would have reason to continue working in a field that is unproductive or of dubious value. And a basic set of possible answers is that they're good at it, they like their jobs, and it's what they're used to, not that they got into it because they thought it was a scam. Thinking about another area that people more commonly suspect of being pathological science, suppose you were very excited about an area of alternative medicine, maybe because you yourself had been treated successfully with it, and you went to the trouble of training in it for several years and getting a credential as a practitioner. Now you start a practice, you enjoy your work, your patients are appreciative, you're apparently getting good outcomes, and you're a respected member of your community. You're aware that critics think that your field is unfounded or that its treatment outcomes are ultimately due to the placebo effect, or maybe to lifestyle changes that you inspire your patients to make, but not directly to the treatments you provide. Are you going to be excited to investigate whether these critics are right about your specialty? Did you ever set out to scam anybody? I think this issue, in one form or another, affects large swaths of our society; we all tend to think our professions are useful and worthwhile, and few of us ever spend much time entertaining criticisms of them, or arguments that imply that we may have wasted years of our lives.

by splawn 10y ago

I would understand that viewpoint if scientists made serious money, but they don't. If they are intelligent and unscrupulous there are MUCH better scams to pursue.

LyndsySimon 10y ago

Scientists - or rather, researchers - don't make huge amounts of money, but it does often require huge amounts of money to facilitate their work. It's not uncommon to see a researcher at a university in the US who makes $80-$120k per year apply for and obtain a grant that's worth tens of millions of dollars to the university.

schoen 10y ago

It's true that working on research or activism whose value you doubt may not make for an especially lucrative scam. On the other hand, probably a lot of activities of questionable value, including some scientific research, were begun in good faith by people who found them interesting, exciting, or enjoyable. After becoming well-connected experts in their communities, they now have established careers and a life situation that particularly qualifies them to continue those careers, and a corresponding incentive to believe and argue that their careers are relevant and important. I don't think this is the case with climate researchers in particular; I'm just considering the question of why people would have reason to continue working in a field that is unproductive or of dubious value. And a basic set of possible answers is that they're good at it, they like their jobs, and it's what they're used to, not that they got into it because they thought it was a scam. Thinking about another area that people more commonly suspect of being pathological science, suppose you were very excited about an area of alternative medicine, maybe because you yourself had been treated successfully with it, and you went to the trouble of training in it for several years and getting a credential as a practitioner. Now you start a practice, you enjoy your work, your patients are appreciative, you're apparently getting good outcomes, and you're a respected member of your community. You're aware that critics think that your field is unfounded or that its treatment outcomes are ultimately due to the placebo effect, or maybe to lifestyle changes that you inspire your patients to make, but not directly to the treatments you provide. Are you going to be excited to investigate whether these critics are right about your specialty? Did you ever set out to scam anybody? I think this issue, in one form or another, affects large swaths of our society; we all tend to think our professions are useful and worthwhile, and few of us ever spend much time entertaining criticisms of them, or arguments that imply that we may have wasted years of our lives.