4 ms·
I'm not sure the characterization of science not being full of bullshit jobs is accurate. Many of these jobs are studying fields that finished decades ago, tra
by lumost 5y ago
I'm not sure the characterization of science not being full of bullshit jobs is accurate. Many of these jobs are studying fields that finished decades ago, training scientists who will never work in the field, writing endless tiny grant proposals, and trying to publish enough not to get buried.
I think we need a more stable funding model for science that doesn't incentivize gaming the system. I'd love it if 60% of the population had stable employement as scientists while robots did everything else for us, but spending 100x on our current science infrastructure would probably mean less output unless we allow greater independence and stability.
- petermcneeley 5y ago"I think we need a more stable funding model for science that doesn't incentivize gaming the system." I think there is a scarcity issue here and if that scarcity issue was resolved you would see a blooming of scientific discoveries/applications. As for the fields finishing decades ago. Yes some of them have become quite well defined (Physics) but there still is plenty of room for applied science and engineering in these areas.
- xipho 5y ago> but spending 100x on our current science infrastructure would probably mean less output unless we allow greater independence and stability I assume you mean $ for infrastructure as in physical buildings or something, not $ for research? Either way, I can imagine no world in which 100x $ will mean less output in Science. I'd entertain less output/$ arguments, but flat out adding money meaning less Science being done?!? If you do mean this then I supect you haven't written grants, nor (formally) reviewed them on a board, nor struggled for reagents, used surplus computers, or pined for a better microscope, or figured out what field work to cut etc. etc... if this is your take.