7 ms·

Those generalizations where bound to come back and bite me... I agree with your point and allow me to ensure you, there is no vehement anti-intellectualism in

by emanuer 15y ago

Those generalizations where bound to come back and bite me... I agree with your point and allow me to ensure you, there is no vehement anti-intellectualism in my thoughts. On the contrary, I very much believe in Scientific advancements. The correct statement should have been: Fewer life changing technologies can be attributed to Scientists than to for-profit companies. This is due to the higher budgets and bigger number of people working in companies, compared to staff employed by Universities. Furthermore companies are bound to create something people are willing to pay for. Universities don't have this kind of "restrictions" and can do work on a more abstract level, which may not translate into anything tangible for years to come.

Hyena 15y ago
That correction is a concession. If you have more resources and more people and you're not producing more, you're doing something wrong. Very wrong. Second, the talk of "abstract level" and "tangibility" is basically the same sort of interdisciplinary rivalry we've come to expect between the science and engineering groups. It's old. It's tired. Let it die in peace.
tensor 15y ago
I don't think it's very practical to argue which group produces more life-changing technologies. Suffice to say, both have their place. Regarding restrictions, there are a great many researchers who would love to see their contributions widely applied and have big impact. While there is sometimes cross-over between industry, a lot of the time researchers have no resources to advertise or widely implement their discoveries. The basic point of your blog post is absolutely correct of course: people can have a big impact on the world without going into academics. It's not always clear where it will come from either. But equally, there is no harm in exploring the other side.
- emanuer 15y ago
  This is an response to "Hyena"'s comment as well. It never occurred to me that there is a rivalry between Scientists and Engineers therefor I put this sentence down quite carelessly, my apology. The question: who is more important, is very futile in my opinion. It would be like asking: who is more important, construction workers, or truck drivers? Our life would be impossible without either of them. My main argument actually was intended to be: If you like what you are doing and you are innovating on any level, you are likely to do good to the world. (As a provider of tools you don't know how your tools will be used, you can only hope) For this you don't need to work in Academia, you don't need to be in Silicon Valley. BUT if you are in Silicon Valley by the sheer scale you are doing much more good than the average person ever could.

by emanuer 15y ago

Hyena 15y ago

That correction is a concession. If you have more resources and more people and you're not producing more, you're doing something wrong. Very wrong. Second, the talk of "abstract level" and "tangibility" is basically the same sort of interdisciplinary rivalry we've come to expect between the science and engineering groups. It's old. It's tired. Let it die in peace.

tensor 15y ago

I don't think it's very practical to argue which group produces more life-changing technologies. Suffice to say, both have their place. Regarding restrictions, there are a great many researchers who would love to see their contributions widely applied and have big impact. While there is sometimes cross-over between industry, a lot of the time researchers have no resources to advertise or widely implement their discoveries. The basic point of your blog post is absolutely correct of course: people can have a big impact on the world without going into academics. It's not always clear where it will come from either. But equally, there is no harm in exploring the other side.

emanuer 15y ago
This is an response to "Hyena"'s comment as well. It never occurred to me that there is a rivalry between Scientists and Engineers therefor I put this sentence down quite carelessly, my apology. The question: who is more important, is very futile in my opinion. It would be like asking: who is more important, construction workers, or truck drivers? Our life would be impossible without either of them. My main argument actually was intended to be: If you like what you are doing and you are innovating on any level, you are likely to do good to the world. (As a provider of tools you don't know how your tools will be used, you can only hope) For this you don't need to work in Academia, you don't need to be in Silicon Valley. BUT if you are in Silicon Valley by the sheer scale you are doing much more good than the average person ever could.