4 ms·

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

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.
    - selimthegrim 5y ago
      Feyerabend may have a point here, but elsewhere on this site I have raised my doubts about his understanding of some physics notions. It is sad to see errors propagated at the same time as good points. Disciplined Minds is a good book.
Fomite 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." Which is a pity. There's a prominent member of my field who does this for causal inference work, and it has been invaluable.
- tomcat27 5y ago
  The problem at heart is research pace. Slowing the pace should help. i.e., it should be ok for faculty to produce half the papers they now produce and still retain their hopes on tenure, or whatever grants and glory. I cannot get creative under pressure. I don't know how anyone can. There is insurmountable amount of papers produced every year in AI, and everyone's in a rat race for some reason I don't understand. There is no way someone can exist in a department for more than a year without pushing a paper. At least in AI, the courses students are taught, professors have an understanding are out of touch with the kind of mathematical rigor needed.
  - bmitc 5y ago
    I would guess that the rat race in that case is probably driven by the ability of the machine learning industry to pull people from academia. So the rat race is a literal one, with people trying to get hired by Google, Meta, and the like. In general though, I am with you. I don’t understand why people are in such a hurry all the time these days. I have a personal principle that I move slow to move fast. Moving slow and methodically is almost always faster in the end.
cupofpython 5y ago
>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. Speaking of relating scientists to labor workers.. There is a lot of value to be earned by closing the gap between cutting edge, but proven, science and easily understood training documents for contract workers. I would say most people would not care if we stopped using tax dollars to fund string theory research or finding 'habitable' planets, and a host of other luxury topics. we need to fortify our infrastructure (in every sense of the word) with all the things we have established as 'known ideas' today. it doesnt feel like we are in the golden age anymore where we can afford luxury research. at least not this decade. imo The only 3 research fields still worth investing tax dollars in is long term energy storage, AI, and GMO. Everything else can kick rocks and start pitching in with more necessary labor or do it on their own time. the reason for those exceptions is that based on what we already know, there is a potential for resolving some unknowns that would result in global disruptions. IE self driving cars have proof of concept, resetting cell age has been done in mice,and the energy crisis demands a need for energy storage research to be exhausted This standpoint is very specific to the world we live in today. Such luxury research is the reason we are where we are today and we should continue it in the future, but given what we know now - we should be in a heavy transition period towards getting the most out of what we already know. We've reached the part of the brainstorm session where the new topics being introduced arent exactly wrong, but it is borderline annoying and distracting in relation to accomplishing anything and it would be nice if our smartest people would contribute to the project
- louloulou 5y ago
  > we should be in a heavy transition period towards getting the most out of what we already know That's what a free market is for. Developing technology from what we already know is profitable and self sustaining. I can't think of anything worse than governments directing technology development. Science is the process of uncovering and understanding things about the world that we don't already know. Who exactly is in a position to know what counts as luxury? By your logic the discovery of the electron 125 years ago was luxury research, and the fact that our civilization is based on electricity and electronics today is irrelevant. General relativity didn't have practical applications for almost a hundred years, now we all rely on it indirectly everyday for GPS.

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.
  - selimthegrim 5y ago
    Feyerabend may have a point here, but elsewhere on this site I have raised my doubts about his understanding of some physics notions. It is sad to see errors propagated at the same time as good points. Disciplined Minds is a good book.

Fomite 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." Which is a pity. There's a prominent member of my field who does this for causal inference work, and it has been invaluable.

tomcat27 5y ago
The problem at heart is research pace. Slowing the pace should help. i.e., it should be ok for faculty to produce half the papers they now produce and still retain their hopes on tenure, or whatever grants and glory. I cannot get creative under pressure. I don't know how anyone can. There is insurmountable amount of papers produced every year in AI, and everyone's in a rat race for some reason I don't understand. There is no way someone can exist in a department for more than a year without pushing a paper. At least in AI, the courses students are taught, professors have an understanding are out of touch with the kind of mathematical rigor needed.
- bmitc 5y ago
  I would guess that the rat race in that case is probably driven by the ability of the machine learning industry to pull people from academia. So the rat race is a literal one, with people trying to get hired by Google, Meta, and the like. In general though, I am with you. I don’t understand why people are in such a hurry all the time these days. I have a personal principle that I move slow to move fast. Moving slow and methodically is almost always faster in the end.

cupofpython 5y ago

>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. Speaking of relating scientists to labor workers.. There is a lot of value to be earned by closing the gap between cutting edge, but proven, science and easily understood training documents for contract workers. I would say most people would not care if we stopped using tax dollars to fund string theory research or finding 'habitable' planets, and a host of other luxury topics. we need to fortify our infrastructure (in every sense of the word) with all the things we have established as 'known ideas' today. it doesnt feel like we are in the golden age anymore where we can afford luxury research. at least not this decade. imo The only 3 research fields still worth investing tax dollars in is long term energy storage, AI, and GMO. Everything else can kick rocks and start pitching in with more necessary labor or do it on their own time. the reason for those exceptions is that based on what we already know, there is a potential for resolving some unknowns that would result in global disruptions. IE self driving cars have proof of concept, resetting cell age has been done in mice,and the energy crisis demands a need for energy storage research to be exhausted This standpoint is very specific to the world we live in today. Such luxury research is the reason we are where we are today and we should continue it in the future, but given what we know now - we should be in a heavy transition period towards getting the most out of what we already know. We've reached the part of the brainstorm session where the new topics being introduced arent exactly wrong, but it is borderline annoying and distracting in relation to accomplishing anything and it would be nice if our smartest people would contribute to the project

louloulou 5y ago
> we should be in a heavy transition period towards getting the most out of what we already know That's what a free market is for. Developing technology from what we already know is profitable and self sustaining. I can't think of anything worse than governments directing technology development. Science is the process of uncovering and understanding things about the world that we don't already know. Who exactly is in a position to know what counts as luxury? By your logic the discovery of the electron 125 years ago was luxury research, and the fact that our civilization is based on electricity and electronics today is irrelevant. General relativity didn't have practical applications for almost a hundred years, now we all rely on it indirectly everyday for GPS.