8 ms·

I would go much further and say almost all "science" is done poorly. The scientific method, when applied rigorously (!), is deeply uneconomical in the vast maj

I would go much further and say almost all "science" is done poorly. The scientific method, when applied rigorously (!), is deeply uneconomical in the vast majority of cases, because the market has already eliminated most glaring inefficiencies by pure trial and error. Any possible gains are likely marginal anyway. Doing a bunch of half-assed and meaningless experiments just to slap the prestigious "science" label on something on the other hand is very economical. So that's what people do instead.

themodelplumber 8y ago
Also, if you've studied human psychology in depth, you realize that the scientific method is a mirror of a very specific set of traits "owned" by a subset of humans. If you're on the outside of that subset, it turns out that not only is it easier just to slap the label on, but your ideal customer (relative to your psychology) doesn't really care to do much more than a simple label check anyway. From zero to 'rm -rf science-budget' in one marketing exercise. A sad truth but coming around to it can help us understand why scientists need to work on social policy and outreach messaging as well. Scientific values simply will not sell themselves the way we think they should, outside of our little sphere. Fortunately our cultural messaging has vastly improved in this domain recently. Bridge psychologies like that of Bill Nye are great examples of how this can work.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
parksy 8y ago
I'm also interested in what motivates this behaviour. Anecdotally I feel that the current incentive structure is entirely financial. People may get into a field to do good, but they have to justify an ROI on everything they do. Society fetishizes financial success and universally condemns financial failure. Live in that world as a struggling student scientist, juggling the prospects of a "marketable" thesis versus an ethical one, as debts pile up and staring down the barrel of your entire life amounting to being yet another mediocre drone / living on the streets / not being a scientist at all. The prospect of being completely broke, unable to afford rent, unable to afford food, being an embarrassment to friends and family, these factors exist and must surely inform the judgement and behaviours of students in a position to have a study funded. I know of phd's still struggling in their careers against the same thing, where an institute is more interested in publicity than the actual science. The symptom may be half-assed and meaningless experiments but that is not to say the individuals responsible aren't capable or willing of so much more if the appropriate supporting social structures existed to allow ethical scientific thinkers to exist, or if institutions stopped taking in students for the money and instead tested applicants for profit. It's easy to point out the problem but how can it be solved? To me, I think there needs to be publicly funded institutes that have no profit motive and exist purely to intake the best academic minds, this might seem anti capitalist but as a model it is an investment in the future of a society that is calculated in quality rather than quantity.
- gridlockd 8y ago
  By and large, profit does represent societal good, this whole "anti-profit" attitude is misguided. On the other hand, it is often possible to profit unethically and sometimes that is the most expedient way. There is a cost to this, which is reputational. That's why it's important to call out bullshit. The problem with research is that the business risk is high so the potential rewards need to be equally high. So there is an argument to be made for large entities (up to and including the state) to fund research, but there need to be checks and balances. The ones we have may not be perfect, but that doesn't mean they're inadequate. It's all just overhead as far as I am concerned.
- XuMiao 8y ago
  Knowledge is a product, we should not only be a geek and leave the profit to the others voluntarily. All scientists should stand up to learn how to raise funds, market, sell, and refine. In fact, the business side of the effort is also very difficult and professional. The effort can further help reshape the research. Having a small team can reduce the bureaucratic requirements of prestige pseudo-scientific stamp but enforce the true scientific methology to solve the problems. The business relationship among people is becoming flatter instead of deeper. Tooling is going to help individuals achieving more independently. At least it's the reality I would like to live in.

themodelplumber 8y ago

Also, if you've studied human psychology in depth, you realize that the scientific method is a mirror of a very specific set of traits "owned" by a subset of humans. If you're on the outside of that subset, it turns out that not only is it easier just to slap the label on, but your ideal customer (relative to your psychology) doesn't really care to do much more than a simple label check anyway. From zero to 'rm -rf science-budget' in one marketing exercise. A sad truth but coming around to it can help us understand why scientists need to work on social policy and outreach messaging as well. Scientific values simply will not sell themselves the way we think they should, outside of our little sphere. Fortunately our cultural messaging has vastly improved in this domain recently. Bridge psychologies like that of Bill Nye are great examples of how this can work.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

parksy 8y ago

I'm also interested in what motivates this behaviour. Anecdotally I feel that the current incentive structure is entirely financial. People may get into a field to do good, but they have to justify an ROI on everything they do. Society fetishizes financial success and universally condemns financial failure. Live in that world as a struggling student scientist, juggling the prospects of a "marketable" thesis versus an ethical one, as debts pile up and staring down the barrel of your entire life amounting to being yet another mediocre drone / living on the streets / not being a scientist at all. The prospect of being completely broke, unable to afford rent, unable to afford food, being an embarrassment to friends and family, these factors exist and must surely inform the judgement and behaviours of students in a position to have a study funded. I know of phd's still struggling in their careers against the same thing, where an institute is more interested in publicity than the actual science. The symptom may be half-assed and meaningless experiments but that is not to say the individuals responsible aren't capable or willing of so much more if the appropriate supporting social structures existed to allow ethical scientific thinkers to exist, or if institutions stopped taking in students for the money and instead tested applicants for profit. It's easy to point out the problem but how can it be solved? To me, I think there needs to be publicly funded institutes that have no profit motive and exist purely to intake the best academic minds, this might seem anti capitalist but as a model it is an investment in the future of a society that is calculated in quality rather than quantity.

gridlockd 8y ago
By and large, profit does represent societal good, this whole "anti-profit" attitude is misguided. On the other hand, it is often possible to profit unethically and sometimes that is the most expedient way. There is a cost to this, which is reputational. That's why it's important to call out bullshit. The problem with research is that the business risk is high so the potential rewards need to be equally high. So there is an argument to be made for large entities (up to and including the state) to fund research, but there need to be checks and balances. The ones we have may not be perfect, but that doesn't mean they're inadequate. It's all just overhead as far as I am concerned.
XuMiao 8y ago
Knowledge is a product, we should not only be a geek and leave the profit to the others voluntarily. All scientists should stand up to learn how to raise funds, market, sell, and refine. In fact, the business side of the effort is also very difficult and professional. The effort can further help reshape the research. Having a small team can reduce the bureaucratic requirements of prestige pseudo-scientific stamp but enforce the true scientific methology to solve the problems. The business relationship among people is becoming flatter instead of deeper. Tooling is going to help individuals achieving more independently. At least it's the reality I would like to live in.