4 ms·

> but we wouldn’t say that scientists don’t exist anymore. Yes we do. They don't exist as we have romantically understood them. Scientists used to take risks

> but we wouldn’t say that scientists don’t exist anymore. Yes we do. They don't exist as we have romantically understood them. Scientists used to take risks, play with the entire world, question things, actually be open, actually play with science as a child. Now they join the Facebook group "Fuck I love science" and be done with it because they are pushed into STEM as an ultra narrow career and don't actually understand or want to understand science. The real scientists may still exist hidden somewhere but you never see them. For Tech, I've never seen a correct understanding of the Russians online influence during the 2016 elections on HN. I don't know what it is, and I've never seen anyone explain it with authority other than vague hand waving trying to sound like they know, this is from both links and comments on HN.

willis936 6y ago
Spoken like someone who doesn’t interact with any scientists. I work at a university and have a friend group of chemists PhD students. Every single one of them fit your requirements for the romantic vision of a scientist, yet have far more accurate models at their disposal than previous generations of scientists. “You never see them.” because you choose not to look. You look at your algorithm driven feed and shape your worldview around it. Incredibly dangerous. We are one second from midnight on the cyberocracy doomsday clock.
- aaron695 6y ago
  Of my science friends, a few in chemistry, with and without PHD's, no they don't do science. At best they fetishize science pop culture. They are very good at their specializations though. My tech friends do however do science, obviously a subset of my tech friends, for a lot it's also a means to an ends. Those tech friends mess with chemistry, mess with electric experiments, stay up and watch the Higgs Boson announcements and rocket launches. They make rockets with 3D printers(fail). And they mess with computers in their own time. I would say "There’s no such thing as a scientists anymore", where's the HN for scientists?
  - johannes1234321 6y ago
    There isn't the "universal scientist" like a Leonardo da Vinci anymore as there are too much knowledge, but scientists who have broader impact do exist, while most science is in specialisation these days - we are so deep in many fields, that going deeper can't be done equally well in multiple fields.
  - willis936 6y ago
    Ah. So when you say “do science” you mean “worldly and balanced”. Those people exist. Current culture no longer regiments it because it is less effective at making progress. If you’re wealthy, it’s a great way to keep yourself entertained. It’s akin to traveling. There is no doubt that it makes you interesting and valuable and expands your worldview, but it doesn’t actually do anything in terms of adding to the value of humanity. Also, I strongly disagree that scientists are not “doing science”. They are: at an incredible pace on a tight budget. I consider myself more towards the wordly side and less on the specialized side, but I’m an engineer. I don’t need to dedicate my life to focusing in on a series of complicated fields because I don’t need to understand biological mechanisms. I can be one of the best people in my field and then spend my free time dabbling with other things. Saying that people who dedicate their life to actually pushing scientific progress forward are “not doing science” while the people who kick back and play with toys are is incorrect and disrespectful.
9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
Read Muellers report, it's rather good and detailed. It just your "normal" meddling, the difference is that thanks to internet its so much cheaper and easier. Muellers report also revealed that Russians ran biggest BLM social media to they can divide you, should give you an idea what is going on right now in your country. Strangely enough media doesn't talk about it. There is no Russian connection there, it's all 'grass roots'.
- mistermann 6y ago
  Can you reference the section of the Mueller report that covers BLM?
  - scrps 6y ago
    "Initially, the IRA created social media accounts that pretended to be the personal accounts of U.S. persons.[44] By early 2015, the IRA began to create larger social media groups or public social media pages that claimed (falsely) to be affiliated with U.S. political and grassroots organizations. In certain cases, the IRA created accounts that mimicked real U.S. organizations. For example, one IRA-controlled Twitter account, @TEN_GOP, purported to be connected to the Tennessee Republican Party.[45] More commonly, the IRA created accounts in the names of fictitious U.S. organizations and grassroots groups and used these accounts to pose as anti-immigration groups, Tea Party activists, Black Lives Matter protestors, and other U.S. social and political activists." [1] [1] Page 22: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
    - mistermann 6y ago
      Is any of the evidence supporting these claims of IRA actions disclosed, or is that to be taken on faith? I ask because having been through the aluminum tubes, baby incubators story a few years back, I now have fairly strict epistemic standards when it comes to military related matters. I realize skepticism of one's government isn't a terribly popular stance here on HN, but to me it is important.

willis936 6y ago

Spoken like someone who doesn’t interact with any scientists. I work at a university and have a friend group of chemists PhD students. Every single one of them fit your requirements for the romantic vision of a scientist, yet have far more accurate models at their disposal than previous generations of scientists. “You never see them.” because you choose not to look. You look at your algorithm driven feed and shape your worldview around it. Incredibly dangerous. We are one second from midnight on the cyberocracy doomsday clock.

aaron695 6y ago
Of my science friends, a few in chemistry, with and without PHD's, no they don't do science. At best they fetishize science pop culture. They are very good at their specializations though. My tech friends do however do science, obviously a subset of my tech friends, for a lot it's also a means to an ends. Those tech friends mess with chemistry, mess with electric experiments, stay up and watch the Higgs Boson announcements and rocket launches. They make rockets with 3D printers(fail). And they mess with computers in their own time. I would say "There’s no such thing as a scientists anymore", where's the HN for scientists?
- johannes1234321 6y ago
  There isn't the "universal scientist" like a Leonardo da Vinci anymore as there are too much knowledge, but scientists who have broader impact do exist, while most science is in specialisation these days - we are so deep in many fields, that going deeper can't be done equally well in multiple fields.
- willis936 6y ago
  Ah. So when you say “do science” you mean “worldly and balanced”. Those people exist. Current culture no longer regiments it because it is less effective at making progress. If you’re wealthy, it’s a great way to keep yourself entertained. It’s akin to traveling. There is no doubt that it makes you interesting and valuable and expands your worldview, but it doesn’t actually do anything in terms of adding to the value of humanity. Also, I strongly disagree that scientists are not “doing science”. They are: at an incredible pace on a tight budget. I consider myself more towards the wordly side and less on the specialized side, but I’m an engineer. I don’t need to dedicate my life to focusing in on a series of complicated fields because I don’t need to understand biological mechanisms. I can be one of the best people in my field and then spend my free time dabbling with other things. Saying that people who dedicate their life to actually pushing scientific progress forward are “not doing science” while the people who kick back and play with toys are is incorrect and disrespectful.

9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago

Read Muellers report, it's rather good and detailed. It just your "normal" meddling, the difference is that thanks to internet its so much cheaper and easier. Muellers report also revealed that Russians ran biggest BLM social media to they can divide you, should give you an idea what is going on right now in your country. Strangely enough media doesn't talk about it. There is no Russian connection there, it's all 'grass roots'.

mistermann 6y ago
Can you reference the section of the Mueller report that covers BLM?
- scrps 6y ago
  "Initially, the IRA created social media accounts that pretended to be the personal accounts of U.S. persons.[44] By early 2015, the IRA began to create larger social media groups or public social media pages that claimed (falsely) to be affiliated with U.S. political and grassroots organizations. In certain cases, the IRA created accounts that mimicked real U.S. organizations. For example, one IRA-controlled Twitter account, @TEN_GOP, purported to be connected to the Tennessee Republican Party.[45] More commonly, the IRA created accounts in the names of fictitious U.S. organizations and grassroots groups and used these accounts to pose as anti-immigration groups, Tea Party activists, Black Lives Matter protestors, and other U.S. social and political activists." [1] [1] Page 22: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
  - mistermann 6y ago
    Is any of the evidence supporting these claims of IRA actions disclosed, or is that to be taken on faith? I ask because having been through the aluminum tubes, baby incubators story a few years back, I now have fairly strict epistemic standards when it comes to military related matters. I realize skepticism of one's government isn't a terribly popular stance here on HN, but to me it is important.