5 ms·

Having multiple family members working actively as scientists and academics i've been pretty blackpilled about what "science" actually is for the most part. Of

Having multiple family members working actively as scientists and academics i've been pretty blackpilled about what "science" actually is for the most part. Off course there's heaps of interesting papers and progress out there but at least 90% of money and time seems to be spent on politics, careerism and working actively for some disproportionally funded but "profitable" niche. It's get ahead in the game, "earn money for investors" or further some industry astroturfed cause. Also a lot of PhD's use them to grift like cheap salesmen these days unfortunately. Probably has something to do with the corporate incentive structures that have emerged.

dendrite9 4y ago
I'm curious if you think there is more of this in science than in other places. Or is it that we want to think of science and academia as better than/more idealistic? This comment is similar to comments I've heard about nonprofits, govt work, and a quite a few large businesses. For a long time I thought nonprofits were generally good, in college I learned more about what nonprofit means and how that kneejerk reaction of mine could provide cover for a huge range of behaviors. "money and time seems to be spent on politics, careerism and working actively for some disproportionally funded but "profitable" niche"
- kossTKR 4y ago
  Good question. No, i don't think it's much different in other sectors. And the comparison to NGO's is a good one because the same realisation can be made about big parts of that world - ie. lots of them exist to further geopolitical or corporate ends, niches, or keep higher middle class do gooders busy instead of focusing on political or systemic issues. (i have lots of respect for a lot of people in that world still). I guess that leads me to the actual problem; their images as somehow pure or isolated from the rest of societal power dynamics. Everywhere it's about resources, realpolitiks and (media) power, but the internet is filled with people blindly believing in "science", "ngo"'s or people with diplomas for that sake.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > I'm curious if you think there is more of this in science than in other places. Or is it that we want to think of science and academia as better than/more idealistic? As it is, Science has developed a rather substantial reputation (lots of marketing during the COVID phenomenon), and has a large and hyper-confident fan base spreading The Good Word on social media. I often wonder why Science seems unable / uninterested in addressing this non-ideal state of affairs, considering it's substantial intellectual power (a fact I am regularly educated on by my superiors).
MichaelCollins 4y ago
Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by “curiosity” or by a desire to “benefit humanity.” But it is easy to see that neither of these can be the principal motive of most scientists. As for “curiosity,” that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they wouldn’t give a damn about isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles. Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. The “curiosity” explanation for the scientists’ motive just doesn’t stand up. The “benefit of humanity” explanation doesn’t work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of the human race—most of archaeology or comparative linguistics for example. Some other areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities. Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution. Consider the case of Dr. Edward Teller, who had an obvious emotional involvement in promoting nuclear power plants. Did this involvement stem from a desire to benefit humanity? If so, then why didn’t Dr. Teller get emotional about other “humanitarian” causes? If he was such a humanitarian then why did he help to develop the H- bomb? As with many other scientific achievements, it is very much open to question whether nuclear power plants actually do benefit humanity. Does the cheap electricity outweigh the accumulating waste and the risk of accidents? Dr. Teller saw only one side of the question. Clearly his emotional involvement with nuclear power arose not from a desire to “benefit humanity” but from a personal fulfillment he got from his work and from seeing it put to practical use. The same is true of scientists generally. With possible rare exceptions, their motive is neither curiosity nor a desire to benefit humanity but the need to go through the power process: to have a goal (a scientific problem to solve), to make an effort (research) and to attain the goal (solution of the problem.) Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work mainly for the fulfillment they get out of the work itself.

dendrite9 4y ago

I'm curious if you think there is more of this in science than in other places. Or is it that we want to think of science and academia as better than/more idealistic? This comment is similar to comments I've heard about nonprofits, govt work, and a quite a few large businesses. For a long time I thought nonprofits were generally good, in college I learned more about what nonprofit means and how that kneejerk reaction of mine could provide cover for a huge range of behaviors. "money and time seems to be spent on politics, careerism and working actively for some disproportionally funded but "profitable" niche"

kossTKR 4y ago
Good question. No, i don't think it's much different in other sectors. And the comparison to NGO's is a good one because the same realisation can be made about big parts of that world - ie. lots of them exist to further geopolitical or corporate ends, niches, or keep higher middle class do gooders busy instead of focusing on political or systemic issues. (i have lots of respect for a lot of people in that world still). I guess that leads me to the actual problem; their images as somehow pure or isolated from the rest of societal power dynamics. Everywhere it's about resources, realpolitiks and (media) power, but the internet is filled with people blindly believing in "science", "ngo"'s or people with diplomas for that sake.
mistermann 4y ago
> I'm curious if you think there is more of this in science than in other places. Or is it that we want to think of science and academia as better than/more idealistic? As it is, Science has developed a rather substantial reputation (lots of marketing during the COVID phenomenon), and has a large and hyper-confident fan base spreading The Good Word on social media. I often wonder why Science seems unable / uninterested in addressing this non-ideal state of affairs, considering it's substantial intellectual power (a fact I am regularly educated on by my superiors).

MichaelCollins 4y ago

Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by “curiosity” or by a desire to “benefit humanity.” But it is easy to see that neither of these can be the principal motive of most scientists. As for “curiosity,” that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they wouldn’t give a damn about isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles. Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. The “curiosity” explanation for the scientists’ motive just doesn’t stand up. The “benefit of humanity” explanation doesn’t work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of the human race—most of archaeology or comparative linguistics for example. Some other areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities. Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution. Consider the case of Dr. Edward Teller, who had an obvious emotional involvement in promoting nuclear power plants. Did this involvement stem from a desire to benefit humanity? If so, then why didn’t Dr. Teller get emotional about other “humanitarian” causes? If he was such a humanitarian then why did he help to develop the H- bomb? As with many other scientific achievements, it is very much open to question whether nuclear power plants actually do benefit humanity. Does the cheap electricity outweigh the accumulating waste and the risk of accidents? Dr. Teller saw only one side of the question. Clearly his emotional involvement with nuclear power arose not from a desire to “benefit humanity” but from a personal fulfillment he got from his work and from seeing it put to practical use. The same is true of scientists generally. With possible rare exceptions, their motive is neither curiosity nor a desire to benefit humanity but the need to go through the power process: to have a goal (a scientific problem to solve), to make an effort (research) and to attain the goal (solution of the problem.) Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work mainly for the fulfillment they get out of the work itself.