8 ms·

> scientists who can be bought off for nothing and blackmailed easily. Bought off by who? I presume the "elite families" you mention. So either way we are rule

by manux 6y ago

> scientists who can be bought off for nothing and blackmailed easily. Bought off by who? I presume the "elite families" you mention. So either way we are ruled by the wealthy in this model. There are other options of course and I assume you would agree, I just wanted to point out my surprise at this false dichotomy (that's not even a dichotomy since they're mostly the same scenario). I also agree 100% that STEM professionals should be trained to be citizens first.

cuspy 6y ago
I was thinking primarily of other states or foreign entities who have an interest in undermining competitivity, stealing or suppressing emerging technologies. Mentioning elite families was as an illustrative contrast, since at least domestic entities (who may want to maintain a monopoly on certain technologies) would be less directly incentivised to undermine the institutions that serve them.
ptero 6y ago
I heard of tailoring findings to the preferences of the grant giver (advocate a wrong view and kiss your grant good-bye). This is very worrisome as a lot of experimental science labs are so grant dependent. I actually think this is partly a self-inflicted wound -- a large fraction of major grant givers want truth and can stand findings that go against their beliefs, but given the heavy dependence of labs on grants there is a tendency to sugar coat findings to the taste of the money source. Which is totally, completely and absolutely against the spirit of real science. My 2c.
- achillesheels 6y ago
  Hence the reason science has always been an aristocratic pursuit. Georg Feuerbach demonstrates this point with the thought-provoking claim that only a polytheistic tradition (such as Athens) can breed a love of natural beauty which obligates a love of knowing its ways. But it is principally a love of Nature (and it’s universals) and not a love of wealth which moves the civilization higher. Galileo, Descartes, Newton had pretensions but immortal ones.
  - UncleOxidant 6y ago
    I'm not sure I follow the connection here: > only a polytheistic tradition (such as Athens) can breed a love of natural beauty which obligates a love of knowing its ways. None of the people in your list below were polytheists: > Galileo, Descartes, Newton
    - achillesheels 6y ago
      They were principally moved by Aristotle, however. First by Galileo falsifying him. Further, the development of analytical geometry and calculus necessitated the Greek polytheistic “infatuation” with geometry.
  - danielam 6y ago
    Don't follow the part about polytheism. I would say, if anything, polytheism is a hindrance to the development of science. For one, the capriciousness of the gods makes nature arbitrary and unpredictable. FWIW, Stanley Jaki argues something quite different to what you've written in "Science and Creation" and "The Road of Science and the Ways of God". P.S. A quick search doesn't bring up any noteworthy Georg Feuerbachs.
    - achillesheels 6y ago
      https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/essence/ec11.htm https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/e... George, my mistake. (Polytheism brings up the relevant passage starting with Jews) The philosophers did not follow the gods, they believed in the divinity of reason. If anything, and consistent with the Scientific Revolution, the confidence in the self-certainty of reason permitted the imagination to expand “beyond” the natural, to examine it, to know it, to necessarily effect it for our reasonable ends. Where I think the pagans fall short is in their worship of visible objects, where they have no concept of an invisibly present permanence in nature, ie electromagnetic radiation.
      - danielam 6y ago
- defterGoose 6y ago
  > Which is totally, completely and absolutely against the spirit of real science. My 2c. Absolutely true, but examine the power dynamic. The scientists are only able to provide results (whether for or against) if they have bread on the table. The funders (as private entities) provide an almost inescapable dilemma then for the researchers. So who's more at fault, the scientist or the ones holding the purse strings? Why would we expect scientists to live up to some lofty ideal while others seek only personal profit through them? Really, this is just a greater indictment of what our system has morphed into, where science and R&D is increasingly seen as the province of private companies, and not to be funded publicly. (Or worse, to be funded publicly and then gatekept for profit)
  - nickff 6y ago
    In the United States, the majority of research funding is from the Federal Government, and it has been increasing since before the Second World War. If there is a problem, it is likely in the government grant process. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-govern... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science#United_Stat...
exolymph 6y ago
How 'bout the Chinese government?
- vsareto 6y ago
  And American companies. And the American government.
giardini 6y ago
manux asks> "Bought off by who?" Big pharmaceutical companies that stand to make trillions of dollars. Don't be stupid, follow the money.
xkcd-sucks 6y ago
> Bought off by whom? Of course there's the usual shenanigans re: funding, but anecdotally it seems like most people are "bought off" (or coerced) by their colleagues or their selves, and the payment is career success and social approval. For example: No grad student will invalidate their adviser's career. Very few people challenge the veracity of ubiquitous model systems or paradigms ("measuring $this means $that"). Results are sometimes tailored to be visually appealing. Unexpected results are discarded. The meaning of results can be overstated. An experiment can be set up which is internally perfect but which relies on completely nonsensical assumptions to inform its relation to salient natural phenomena. Etc. To behave that way is to be a "bad citizen", make trouble for people, lose friends, and never get ahead. And practically speaking, most people who challenge prevailing wisdom are noob grad students who don't even know how wrong they are. Of course, this happens to varying degrees in different fields. For materials chemistry of steel, it's pretty obvious when the tensile strength is less than reported. For organic synthesis, many published syntheses are bullshit but it's still obvious if a chemical isn't what it should be. For psychology and some of the newer theoretical disciplines (thinking of one rockstar "network scientist" here!), social consensus carries more weight than "reality" because reality is so tricky to measure.

by manux 6y ago

cuspy 6y ago

I was thinking primarily of other states or foreign entities who have an interest in undermining competitivity, stealing or suppressing emerging technologies. Mentioning elite families was as an illustrative contrast, since at least domestic entities (who may want to maintain a monopoly on certain technologies) would be less directly incentivised to undermine the institutions that serve them.

ptero 6y ago

I heard of tailoring findings to the preferences of the grant giver (advocate a wrong view and kiss your grant good-bye). This is very worrisome as a lot of experimental science labs are so grant dependent. I actually think this is partly a self-inflicted wound -- a large fraction of major grant givers want truth and can stand findings that go against their beliefs, but given the heavy dependence of labs on grants there is a tendency to sugar coat findings to the taste of the money source. Which is totally, completely and absolutely against the spirit of real science. My 2c.

achillesheels 6y ago
Hence the reason science has always been an aristocratic pursuit. Georg Feuerbach demonstrates this point with the thought-provoking claim that only a polytheistic tradition (such as Athens) can breed a love of natural beauty which obligates a love of knowing its ways. But it is principally a love of Nature (and it’s universals) and not a love of wealth which moves the civilization higher. Galileo, Descartes, Newton had pretensions but immortal ones.
- UncleOxidant 6y ago
  I'm not sure I follow the connection here: > only a polytheistic tradition (such as Athens) can breed a love of natural beauty which obligates a love of knowing its ways. None of the people in your list below were polytheists: > Galileo, Descartes, Newton
  - achillesheels 6y ago
    They were principally moved by Aristotle, however. First by Galileo falsifying him. Further, the development of analytical geometry and calculus necessitated the Greek polytheistic “infatuation” with geometry.
- danielam 6y ago
  Don't follow the part about polytheism. I would say, if anything, polytheism is a hindrance to the development of science. For one, the capriciousness of the gods makes nature arbitrary and unpredictable. FWIW, Stanley Jaki argues something quite different to what you've written in "Science and Creation" and "The Road of Science and the Ways of God". P.S. A quick search doesn't bring up any noteworthy Georg Feuerbachs.
  - achillesheels 6y ago
    https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/essence/ec11.htm https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/e... George, my mistake. (Polytheism brings up the relevant passage starting with Jews) The philosophers did not follow the gods, they believed in the divinity of reason. If anything, and consistent with the Scientific Revolution, the confidence in the self-certainty of reason permitted the imagination to expand “beyond” the natural, to examine it, to know it, to necessarily effect it for our reasonable ends. Where I think the pagans fall short is in their worship of visible objects, where they have no concept of an invisibly present permanence in nature, ie electromagnetic radiation.
    - danielam 6y ago
defterGoose 6y ago
> Which is totally, completely and absolutely against the spirit of real science. My 2c. Absolutely true, but examine the power dynamic. The scientists are only able to provide results (whether for or against) if they have bread on the table. The funders (as private entities) provide an almost inescapable dilemma then for the researchers. So who's more at fault, the scientist or the ones holding the purse strings? Why would we expect scientists to live up to some lofty ideal while others seek only personal profit through them? Really, this is just a greater indictment of what our system has morphed into, where science and R&D is increasingly seen as the province of private companies, and not to be funded publicly. (Or worse, to be funded publicly and then gatekept for profit)
- nickff 6y ago
  In the United States, the majority of research funding is from the Federal Government, and it has been increasing since before the Second World War. If there is a problem, it is likely in the government grant process. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-govern... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science#United_Stat...

exolymph 6y ago

How 'bout the Chinese government?

vsareto 6y ago
And American companies. And the American government.

giardini 6y ago

manux asks> "Bought off by who?" Big pharmaceutical companies that stand to make trillions of dollars. Don't be stupid, follow the money.

xkcd-sucks 6y ago

> Bought off by whom? Of course there's the usual shenanigans re: funding, but anecdotally it seems like most people are "bought off" (or coerced) by their colleagues or their selves, and the payment is career success and social approval. For example: No grad student will invalidate their adviser's career. Very few people challenge the veracity of ubiquitous model systems or paradigms ("measuring $this means $that"). Results are sometimes tailored to be visually appealing. Unexpected results are discarded. The meaning of results can be overstated. An experiment can be set up which is internally perfect but which relies on completely nonsensical assumptions to inform its relation to salient natural phenomena. Etc. To behave that way is to be a "bad citizen", make trouble for people, lose friends, and never get ahead. And practically speaking, most people who challenge prevailing wisdom are noob grad students who don't even know how wrong they are. Of course, this happens to varying degrees in different fields. For materials chemistry of steel, it's pretty obvious when the tensile strength is less than reported. For organic synthesis, many published syntheses are bullshit but it's still obvious if a chemical isn't what it should be. For psychology and some of the newer theoretical disciplines (thinking of one rockstar "network scientist" here!), social consensus carries more weight than "reality" because reality is so tricky to measure.