4 ms·
>>Over the past century we’ve vastly increased the time and money invested in science, but in scientists’ own judgement we’re producing the most important break
by CompelTechnic 8y ago
>>Over the past century we’ve vastly increased the time and money invested in science, but in scientists’ own judgement we’re producing the most important breakthroughs at a near-constant rate. On a per-dollar or per-person basis, this suggests that science is becoming far less efficient.
>A much simpler explanation is that we've picked the low-hanging fruits (think of how diverse the work of Darwin was! He picked up novel fossils literally on beach walks), now (especially in physics!) we need bigger and stronger efforts to go for the harder fruits.
Your explanation that we have picked the low-hanging fruits is not mutually exclusive with the increased time and money invested in science. They would even be two sides of the same coin- as the easy pickings disappeared, we chose to invest more to get the harder fruits. As the trend continues, the search space for novel, useful discoveries becomes larger and larger, and the cost increases.
How do you prove to the politicians that a particular scientific investment is worth it?
- a_bonobo 8y ago>How do you prove to the politicians that a particular scientific investment is worth it? I don't think that's possible. The history of science is full of science that shouldn't have worked but did - think of Barry Marshall drinking Helicobacter pylori, which no-one thought to be a causative agent, or think of Norman Borlaug, who came up with shuttle breeding (grow a plant twice a year by driving seeds around, at a time when people thought that you have to let the seeds rest for a while) - but the history of science is also full of things that should have worked but didn't, we just don't hear about those (classic survivor bias). In some cases, you can tell whether an experiment is going to work and how it's important, especially if it's incremental work - in some cases, you simply cannot predict. Just think of how delighted G. H. Hardy was that his mathematics was kind of useless to the general public, and how useful his work is nowadays (most importantly the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium I guess?), he could not have predicted how that works out! What would he have written into his application for funding?
- nonbel 8y ago>"How do you prove to the politicians that a particular scientific investment is worth it?" You* need to make surprising predictions and perform astounding feats that pretty much anyone can verify for themselves. This is an old problem: http://www.hellenicaworld.com/Greece/Technology/en/Syracusia.html http://www.hellenicaworld.com/Greece/Technology/en/Syracusia... *By "you" I mean at least people associated with you or your ideas.
- iamcurious 8y ago> How do you prove to the politicians that a particular scientific investment is worth it? You vote someone who is already convinced of it.