4 ms·

It's funny how nonphysicists (this author) and non-productive physicists (Hossenfelder) beat this drum most loudly. How about we do this: let the people who are

by wmnwmn 8y ago

It's funny how nonphysicists (this author) and non-productive physicists (Hossenfelder) beat this drum most loudly. How about we do this: let the people who are obviously smartest make their own decision about what is most promising to work on, and have enough modesty to realize that their decision is better informed than our efforts to advise.

PopePompus 8y ago
Sounds good, as long as the public isn't expected to cough up the funds for their research. Otherwise, don't blame the public for wondering if the LHC was worth the cost.
- JoshCalbet 8y ago
  "Their research" is the one that keeps pushing technology forwards, the technology that you are using in this moment
  - xv1823 8y ago
    What technology came from the LHC? Or string theory for that matter?
    - cygx 8y ago
      https://kt.cern/technologies https://kt.cern/technologies https://kt.cern/cern-technologies-society https://kt.cern/cern-technologies-society If you want to include past contributions, that WWW thing is kind of neat...
      - T-A 8y ago
        Except it had nothing to do with physics and was not a research project, just yet another hypertext system.
    - yorwba 8y ago
      Tim Berners-Lee developed HTTP (and the underlying idea of "hypertext" made of interlinked documents) to support scientific collaboration at CERN. I'm not aware of any technological advances produced by the measurements at the LHC, but it has been running for barely 10 years. On the other hand, building the thing probably required significant innovations in magnets and sensors.
pdonis 8y ago
> non-productive physicists (Hossenfelder) Why do you think Hossenfelder is a non-productive physicist? > How about we do this: let the people who are obviously smartest make their own decision about what is most promising to work on We've been doing that all along in physics, and it doesn't seem to be working out.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  It's remarkable how rotten the state of things are in academia while everyone beats around this bush without outright saying it. Some of the best physicists in the world right now are likely to be caught up in just providing for themselves. Why cant someone in Africa, or wherever, get a degree in physics from Harvard? Why do they need anyone's permission to have access to this? Why can't they at least have access to course material and testing, so they can openly compete? Who is afraid of the competition? There's no ethical justification for that. The world spends trillions in public and private money already. This is just one criticism, and I'm not alone in classifying academia as rotten. Feynman said the same. So few people have the bravery to stand up to an entire socioeconomic complex, even when it means people will die and projects will fail dramatically: see the Nasa Challenger Groupthink Disaster (which Feynman also criticized).
  - pdonis 8y ago
    > Why cant someone in Africa, or wherever, get a degree in physics from Harvard? I would put this somewhat differently: why should you need a degree in physics from Harvard to do physics? What value does that credential actually add? Note, btw, that my own alma mater, MIT, has all of its course materials (lectures, problem sets, selected solutions) available online for free: https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
    - wallace_f 8y ago
      Yea, good point. But some kind of signalling is helpful, no? And OCW is a great project, but all the course material isn't online. Also, saying to an employer or researcher "I took some OCW courses" isn't a very good signal. A much better signal would be, "I passed such and such examinations with such and such scores." Open competition I think is important.
neonate 8y ago
Because being smart doesn't make you immune from social biases and institutional incentives, which is the point of the OP.
xv1823 8y ago
There is a very interesting interview with Edward Teller, who makes the exact point that throwing money at science does NOT produce results, whereas throwing money at technology sometimes does. I think Teller qualifies as smart.
- gxmarkov 8y ago
  So the downvoters, presumably members of the academic industrial complex, assert that there is no such interview? Interesting.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
plmu 8y ago
Those that decide to stay in the race, are not necessarily the smartest. Maybe they are the most focussed, more blind to external impulses and "distractions". Plus they are more likely, being in the field, to be affected by these biases. It would be unwise for any field, even that of brilliant physicists, to ignore external opinions and inputs.

by wmnwmn 8y ago

PopePompus 8y ago

Sounds good, as long as the public isn't expected to cough up the funds for their research. Otherwise, don't blame the public for wondering if the LHC was worth the cost.

JoshCalbet 8y ago
"Their research" is the one that keeps pushing technology forwards, the technology that you are using in this moment
- xv1823 8y ago
  What technology came from the LHC? Or string theory for that matter?
  - cygx 8y ago
    https://kt.cern/technologies https://kt.cern/technologies https://kt.cern/cern-technologies-society https://kt.cern/cern-technologies-society If you want to include past contributions, that WWW thing is kind of neat...
    - T-A 8y ago
      Except it had nothing to do with physics and was not a research project, just yet another hypertext system.
  - yorwba 8y ago
    Tim Berners-Lee developed HTTP (and the underlying idea of "hypertext" made of interlinked documents) to support scientific collaboration at CERN. I'm not aware of any technological advances produced by the measurements at the LHC, but it has been running for barely 10 years. On the other hand, building the thing probably required significant innovations in magnets and sensors.

pdonis 8y ago

> non-productive physicists (Hossenfelder) Why do you think Hossenfelder is a non-productive physicist? > How about we do this: let the people who are obviously smartest make their own decision about what is most promising to work on We've been doing that all along in physics, and it doesn't seem to be working out.

wallace_f 8y ago
It's remarkable how rotten the state of things are in academia while everyone beats around this bush without outright saying it. Some of the best physicists in the world right now are likely to be caught up in just providing for themselves. Why cant someone in Africa, or wherever, get a degree in physics from Harvard? Why do they need anyone's permission to have access to this? Why can't they at least have access to course material and testing, so they can openly compete? Who is afraid of the competition? There's no ethical justification for that. The world spends trillions in public and private money already. This is just one criticism, and I'm not alone in classifying academia as rotten. Feynman said the same. So few people have the bravery to stand up to an entire socioeconomic complex, even when it means people will die and projects will fail dramatically: see the Nasa Challenger Groupthink Disaster (which Feynman also criticized).
- pdonis 8y ago
  > Why cant someone in Africa, or wherever, get a degree in physics from Harvard? I would put this somewhat differently: why should you need a degree in physics from Harvard to do physics? What value does that credential actually add? Note, btw, that my own alma mater, MIT, has all of its course materials (lectures, problem sets, selected solutions) available online for free: https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    Yea, good point. But some kind of signalling is helpful, no? And OCW is a great project, but all the course material isn't online. Also, saying to an employer or researcher "I took some OCW courses" isn't a very good signal. A much better signal would be, "I passed such and such examinations with such and such scores." Open competition I think is important.

neonate 8y ago

Because being smart doesn't make you immune from social biases and institutional incentives, which is the point of the OP.

xv1823 8y ago

There is a very interesting interview with Edward Teller, who makes the exact point that throwing money at science does NOT produce results, whereas throwing money at technology sometimes does. I think Teller qualifies as smart.

gxmarkov 8y ago
So the downvoters, presumably members of the academic industrial complex, assert that there is no such interview? Interesting.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

plmu 8y ago

Those that decide to stay in the race, are not necessarily the smartest. Maybe they are the most focussed, more blind to external impulses and "distractions". Plus they are more likely, being in the field, to be affected by these biases. It would be unwise for any field, even that of brilliant physicists, to ignore external opinions and inputs.