4 ms·

I would agree with funding more science, but you'll need some hoops to jump through or anyone can just come in and grab free money to "do research" with. I thin

I would agree with funding more science, but you'll need some hoops to jump through or anyone can just come in and grab free money to "do research" with. I think you will necessarily end up not too far from where we are now because of that.

intended 6y ago
sure go for it. If you have a country rewarding intellectual effort, that’s a good country to be a part of. I’m betting that there will be more smart people trying more smart things that will end up positive than not. I mean we are on a hackers and startups forum - it’s the fundamental premise of a majority of people visiting this site. Honestly this seems like an issues of not having testable hypotheses. I’d love to see how it gets to a testable state.
cycomanic 6y ago
Why? I find this attitude curious the thought that all the academics would suddenly start just taking the money and twiddle thumbs. So because of this we set up a huge administrative body around it and keep the academics from actually doing the work. I can tell you that the vast majority of academics are not motivated by money. If that was the case they would move into industry where they could earn significantly more.
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  > the vast majority of academics are not motivated by money. If that was the case they would move into industry where they could earn significantly more. Good point, becoming an academic may already represent enough of a hoop, though that’s just the CS perspective. In other fields there may not be much of a lucrative industry, so I’m not sure whether this will hold generally.
- engineeringwoke 6y ago
  > I can tell you that the vast majority of academics are not motivated by money. If that was the case they would move into industry where they could earn significantly more. No, they're motivated by safety. And there's nothing safer than the ivory tower. Academics would work on self-referential research until the end of time if they could get funding for it. They create academia children in a perpetual loop trying their very hardest to avoid life and all its complexities (especially those of people, of which they are ludicrously blind) by living in their theoretical world of nothingness.
- kortilla 6y ago
  > Why? I find this attitude curious the thought that all the academics would suddenly start just taking the money and twiddle thumbs. Depends on how you define “academic”. There are suddenly going to be a lot of “academics” showing up for their free handouts once there is no bar. >I can tell you that the vast majority of academics are not motivated by money. If that was the case they would move into industry where they could earn significantly more. Selection bias. The academics you are thinking of are the ones willing to put all of the work into getting grants, teaching, etc. There are an order of magnitude more PhD holders that nope out of academia after graduation because of the grim prospects.
- Kalium 6y ago
  I suspect that in many fields, funding acts as a fertility drug for researchers. The opportunities to fund research are, accordingly, pretty much always going to outstrip any amount of funding that could be provided. If that's the case, you're inevitably going to need some way to decide which of the many worthy opportunities merit sufficient investment and which ones do not.

intended 6y ago

sure go for it. If you have a country rewarding intellectual effort, that’s a good country to be a part of. I’m betting that there will be more smart people trying more smart things that will end up positive than not. I mean we are on a hackers and startups forum - it’s the fundamental premise of a majority of people visiting this site. Honestly this seems like an issues of not having testable hypotheses. I’d love to see how it gets to a testable state.

cycomanic 6y ago

Why? I find this attitude curious the thought that all the academics would suddenly start just taking the money and twiddle thumbs. So because of this we set up a huge administrative body around it and keep the academics from actually doing the work. I can tell you that the vast majority of academics are not motivated by money. If that was the case they would move into industry where they could earn significantly more.

read_if_gay_ 6y ago
> the vast majority of academics are not motivated by money. If that was the case they would move into industry where they could earn significantly more. Good point, becoming an academic may already represent enough of a hoop, though that’s just the CS perspective. In other fields there may not be much of a lucrative industry, so I’m not sure whether this will hold generally.
engineeringwoke 6y ago
> I can tell you that the vast majority of academics are not motivated by money. If that was the case they would move into industry where they could earn significantly more. No, they're motivated by safety. And there's nothing safer than the ivory tower. Academics would work on self-referential research until the end of time if they could get funding for it. They create academia children in a perpetual loop trying their very hardest to avoid life and all its complexities (especially those of people, of which they are ludicrously blind) by living in their theoretical world of nothingness.
kortilla 6y ago
> Why? I find this attitude curious the thought that all the academics would suddenly start just taking the money and twiddle thumbs. Depends on how you define “academic”. There are suddenly going to be a lot of “academics” showing up for their free handouts once there is no bar. >I can tell you that the vast majority of academics are not motivated by money. If that was the case they would move into industry where they could earn significantly more. Selection bias. The academics you are thinking of are the ones willing to put all of the work into getting grants, teaching, etc. There are an order of magnitude more PhD holders that nope out of academia after graduation because of the grim prospects.
Kalium 6y ago
I suspect that in many fields, funding acts as a fertility drug for researchers. The opportunities to fund research are, accordingly, pretty much always going to outstrip any amount of funding that could be provided. If that's the case, you're inevitably going to need some way to decide which of the many worthy opportunities merit sufficient investment and which ones do not.