4 ms·
An interesting article. That said, I disagree with their arguments relating to public research. Most areas with active public sponsored research are also areas
by kelnage 16y ago
An interesting article. That said, I disagree with their arguments relating to public research. Most areas with active public sponsored research are also areas that require degrees to start working in. Thus, interesting research should be comprehensible by those who have studied the subject at degree level and thereby making it accessible to their employer. For example, at work I frequently make use of papers from the ACM. Of course I wouldn't expect the average Joe to understand the papers - but why exactly should they?
- kiba 16y agoI am not sure what arguments you're making. I think the point of the article is that it is not easy at some level to just use some new discoveries and then incorporate them into technologies because of the amount of expertise that is required.
- kelnage 16y agoAnd that's (part of the reason) why we have degrees - to teach people how to understand research so they can turn it into reality. Yes - it's not easy and yes, it might be easier if someone has already done it - but a lot of the time that isn't true (or they aren't willing to share how they've done it with you). Obviously, in an optimal world, everyone would have equal access to all such knowledge - but there will always be barriers on both sides.
- kiba 16y agoIf everyone knows how to conduct scientific research, they will be crowding out other fields such as musics, cooking, fine arts, and more. It's a tradeoff for giving everyone equal access to such knowledge. It's like saying that everyone should be a programmer, but people waste time trying to learn programs when they can hire a programmer to make a program for them. Then these people will do things that's worth their time such as making musics or cooking food.