6 ms·

> more or less anything goes for a study or a report > pop-scientific studies that are more based on personal interpretation than any reproducible results > T

> more or less anything goes for a study or a report > pop-scientific studies that are more based on personal interpretation than any reproducible results > They can often be studied on your own without need for guidance that can't be solved in a self study. What are these claims based on? From my limited personal involvement and my more extensive reading, they are not at all true. They also conflate many very different fields, from comparative literature to behavioral psychology to ancient history to anthropology to archaeology to philosophy ... A basic requirement, just to get your foot in the door of the lobby, is expert knowledge of prior research and in techniques, something that does require a PhD (which is rewarded for original research - so the parent is almost saying that you don't need a PhD to get a PhD) and years of study. The idea that someone can learn these things (or acquire real expertise in any field) on their own, without mentoring and guidance from existing experts, access to research libraries, communication with peers, access to resources like labs and lab assistants, is hard to fathom and at best extremely inefficient. And that's just the first step. > In what way can we rely on those fields (rather than our own independent thinking) These fields are 'independent thinking'. They are individuals who care to spend years reading deeply, consult with experts, master the literature, practice the techniques, etc. If someone on HN posted that they had done those things, you'd give them some credit. If they got a PhD out of it, perhaps the credit should be taken away. > Most problems we have are solved (and created) by technology That is true, if we overlook minor challenges like government, human rights, education, laws, war, peace, politics, international relations, religion, truth, knowledge, freedom ...

ThomPete 9y ago
https://www.nature.com/news/social-sciences-suffer-from-severe-publication-bias-1.15787 https://www.nature.com/news/social-sciences-suffer-from-seve... https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248 https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-... You last answer kind of illuminates that you are talking about something very different than me. Academia didn't solve any of those areas and I never said that academia doesn't have important areas we are talking about whether it should get funding which my claim is that it doesn't need these days compared to basic research in the hard sciences. The worlds problems aren't going to be solved with another expert in peace or a political science major, understanding how to get fusion to work on the other hand is. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have experts in peace or political science and that they can't be instrumental in bringing something to reality but we don't need funding to learn to be a political major or to acquire knowledge. Getting an education and educating yourself isn't the same.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > Academia didn't solve any of those areas > The worlds problems aren't going to be solved with another expert in peace or a political science major You keep saying that, but what is it based on? How can we ignore the long history of the opposite? Who do you think makes peace and solves these problems? I read a lot of international relations literature (for someone not in that field); these problems are technical, require a lot of expertise (especially because it must be applied it under great uncertainty), and the stakes are incredibly high. In fact, one widely accepted view of many wars up through WWII is that they were caused by amateurs in international relations who made amateur mistakes and ended up with wars they didn't want. I encourage you: Educate yourself; read the literature; learn how international relations, for example, and social policy actually happen. It's easy to write that we should dismiss expertise but before we throw out centuries of knowledge, and lifetimes of acquired expertise for lay amateurs reading Reddit on the weekend, perhaps we should consider it more carefully. The lives, freedom and prosperity of billions of people are at stake. > we don't need funding to learn to be a political major or to acquire knowledge. > Getting an education and educating yourself isn't the same. We need funding to pay professors, to provide resources for their research, and to teach the next generation; and to provide housing and other services and resources for students. The idea that you could learn it on your own without guidance is unfounded and, as I said, extremely inefficient at best. Tell you what: I'll work with someone who has decades of expertise and you do it on your own, and we'll see who gets to the finish line first. My guess is you'll end up way off course and never reach the finish line.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    And you keep missing the point. Please read the parent I was responding to. We are talking about fundamental research today and about academia today. What many problems of society is academia helping solve today? What peace have academia solved? What really big problems in international relations have academia solved today? Peace isn't a byproduct of some academic persons phd it's a byproduct of amongst other things technology making live more livable for more and more people. You don't need to go to the university today to learn to be an expert in international relations technology have ironically enough made it possible to learn about more or less any academic field you want without ever needing a university degree in it.

ThomPete 9y ago

https://www.nature.com/news/social-sciences-suffer-from-severe-publication-bias-1.15787 https://www.nature.com/news/social-sciences-suffer-from-seve... https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248 https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-... You last answer kind of illuminates that you are talking about something very different than me. Academia didn't solve any of those areas and I never said that academia doesn't have important areas we are talking about whether it should get funding which my claim is that it doesn't need these days compared to basic research in the hard sciences. The worlds problems aren't going to be solved with another expert in peace or a political science major, understanding how to get fusion to work on the other hand is. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have experts in peace or political science and that they can't be instrumental in bringing something to reality but we don't need funding to learn to be a political major or to acquire knowledge. Getting an education and educating yourself isn't the same.

forapurpose 9y ago
> Academia didn't solve any of those areas > The worlds problems aren't going to be solved with another expert in peace or a political science major You keep saying that, but what is it based on? How can we ignore the long history of the opposite? Who do you think makes peace and solves these problems? I read a lot of international relations literature (for someone not in that field); these problems are technical, require a lot of expertise (especially because it must be applied it under great uncertainty), and the stakes are incredibly high. In fact, one widely accepted view of many wars up through WWII is that they were caused by amateurs in international relations who made amateur mistakes and ended up with wars they didn't want. I encourage you: Educate yourself; read the literature; learn how international relations, for example, and social policy actually happen. It's easy to write that we should dismiss expertise but before we throw out centuries of knowledge, and lifetimes of acquired expertise for lay amateurs reading Reddit on the weekend, perhaps we should consider it more carefully. The lives, freedom and prosperity of billions of people are at stake. > we don't need funding to learn to be a political major or to acquire knowledge. > Getting an education and educating yourself isn't the same. We need funding to pay professors, to provide resources for their research, and to teach the next generation; and to provide housing and other services and resources for students. The idea that you could learn it on your own without guidance is unfounded and, as I said, extremely inefficient at best. Tell you what: I'll work with someone who has decades of expertise and you do it on your own, and we'll see who gets to the finish line first. My guess is you'll end up way off course and never reach the finish line.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  And you keep missing the point. Please read the parent I was responding to. We are talking about fundamental research today and about academia today. What many problems of society is academia helping solve today? What peace have academia solved? What really big problems in international relations have academia solved today? Peace isn't a byproduct of some academic persons phd it's a byproduct of amongst other things technology making live more livable for more and more people. You don't need to go to the university today to learn to be an expert in international relations technology have ironically enough made it possible to learn about more or less any academic field you want without ever needing a university degree in it.