6 ms·

I think part of the problem is that science is not honest with itself. There is some sense that getting a Ph.D. is an institutionalization process, one that doe

by bmitc 5y ago

I think part of the problem is that science is not honest with itself. There is some sense that getting a Ph.D. is an institutionalization process, one that does not really reward non-conservative, long-term, or high probability of failure work. And god forbid if someone wants to revisit "known" ideas and results to help clarify them, apply them, or place them in better context. There is very much an "in" crowd in science, which leaves a lot of people, people who could positively contribute, feeling "out". We have commoditized academic research, at least in the science and engineering fields, which makes things very streamlined and on rails. I've spent some time in both academic and industrial circles of mathematicians, engineers, computer scientists, and physicists. It is a bit astonishing just how people in each one of these groups all sound like each other and distinct from the other groups. There are particular mannerisms and even idiomatic phrases that each group uses. Some simple ones are that physicists like to say "it goes like" and use the word "codes" to refer to code, as in software code. Computer scientists like to say "it better be". There are many others that I've lost track of and should have written down over these years. Yes, in many ways, the little idiomatic phrases make sense, but it at least lends credence to the question that if they all use the same phrases, something very simple and harmless, how else are they "conditioned"? The book Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the Soul-battering System That Shapes Their Lives by Jeff Schmidt covers some of this. It all makes me wonder if someone like John Archibald Wheeler, a personal favorite, could be successful in today's academic climate.

nautilius 5y ago
The simple answer is: funding. There is no (public) money to revisit "known" ideas and results to help clarify them, apply them, or place them in better context. And I would not be the one to explain to the public to spend their money on known ideas rather than discover something new and shiny. Concerning a PhD, I think it's pretty easy to see that that's not the stage in your career where you would want to embark on long-term, high risk research. Also, I am not surprised that people doing a similar job have a common vocabulary and vernacular. You could say culture. I'd be surprised if carpenters, mechanics, et al. don't have the same thing, with other words and topics, of course. No conspiracies needed. Wheeler had significant contributions, had the right pedigree, the right schools. I don't see how he would be at a disadvantage today.
- bmitc 5y ago
  It's not about conspiracy theories. It's about reality. You even explicitly called it out: culture. That's just the way humans work, for better or worse. One of my points, and I think a point of Disciplined Minds, is that scientists are sometimes not honest or self-aware of the culture that they're a part of. Science is not a purely rational endeavor. There's some fashion and belief to it. > Wheeler had significant contributions, had the right pedigree, the right schools. I don't see how he would be at a disadvantage today. I didn't mean it as a critique upon Wheeler's potential. He was incredible. But he switched fields and research directions several times during his long and successful career. I'm not sure academics today have that fluidity in their careers (not due to internal forces but rather the external ones).
  - nautilius 5y ago
    I don't see why scientists would be less self-aware of their culture than other groups. In particular, that culture has got nothing to do with the things you decry (why is no one looking at old ideas, where, again, the simple problem is money). As soon as Wheeler would have tenure today, he could switch all day long. I am not talking about Wheeler's potential either, but whether he ticks the boxes to make him likely to succeed today. And he does. You are looking for a career that wouldn't work today? Freeman Dyson. Getting tenure at Princeton aged 29 without a doctorate, not so likely today.
    - bmitc 5y ago
      > I don't see why scientists would be less self-aware of their culture than other groups. In my opinion, there’s a rationality bias. In that, if one thinks that they are operating rationally, then they think they are somewhat immune to cultural biases and inclinations. If I am not mistaken, this is similar to things Paul Feyerabend discussed. This is also heavily discussed in the book Disciplined Minds I linked above. > You are looking for a career that wouldn't work today? Freeman Dyson. Getting tenure at Princeton aged 29 without a doctorate, not so likely today. I absolutely agree. I think it’s beyond not likely. It is basically an impossibility.

by bmitc 5y ago

nautilius 5y ago

The simple answer is: funding. There is no (public) money to revisit "known" ideas and results to help clarify them, apply them, or place them in better context. And I would not be the one to explain to the public to spend their money on known ideas rather than discover something new and shiny. Concerning a PhD, I think it's pretty easy to see that that's not the stage in your career where you would want to embark on long-term, high risk research. Also, I am not surprised that people doing a similar job have a common vocabulary and vernacular. You could say culture. I'd be surprised if carpenters, mechanics, et al. don't have the same thing, with other words and topics, of course. No conspiracies needed. Wheeler had significant contributions, had the right pedigree, the right schools. I don't see how he would be at a disadvantage today.

bmitc 5y ago
It's not about conspiracy theories. It's about reality. You even explicitly called it out: culture. That's just the way humans work, for better or worse. One of my points, and I think a point of Disciplined Minds, is that scientists are sometimes not honest or self-aware of the culture that they're a part of. Science is not a purely rational endeavor. There's some fashion and belief to it. > Wheeler had significant contributions, had the right pedigree, the right schools. I don't see how he would be at a disadvantage today. I didn't mean it as a critique upon Wheeler's potential. He was incredible. But he switched fields and research directions several times during his long and successful career. I'm not sure academics today have that fluidity in their careers (not due to internal forces but rather the external ones).
- nautilius 5y ago
  I don't see why scientists would be less self-aware of their culture than other groups. In particular, that culture has got nothing to do with the things you decry (why is no one looking at old ideas, where, again, the simple problem is money). As soon as Wheeler would have tenure today, he could switch all day long. I am not talking about Wheeler's potential either, but whether he ticks the boxes to make him likely to succeed today. And he does. You are looking for a career that wouldn't work today? Freeman Dyson. Getting tenure at Princeton aged 29 without a doctorate, not so likely today.
  - bmitc 5y ago
    > I don't see why scientists would be less self-aware of their culture than other groups. In my opinion, there’s a rationality bias. In that, if one thinks that they are operating rationally, then they think they are somewhat immune to cultural biases and inclinations. If I am not mistaken, this is similar to things Paul Feyerabend discussed. This is also heavily discussed in the book Disciplined Minds I linked above. > You are looking for a career that wouldn't work today? Freeman Dyson. Getting tenure at Princeton aged 29 without a doctorate, not so likely today. I absolutely agree. I think it’s beyond not likely. It is basically an impossibility.