5 ms·

String Theory, "It from (Qu)bit", etc. have been putting out a large amount of B.S. for many years now, and the hype itself became so common that, to compete wi

by dkural 4y ago

String Theory, "It from (Qu)bit", etc. have been putting out a large amount of B.S. for many years now, and the hype itself became so common that, to compete with other B.S. the hype has now become over-the-top blatant nonsense. Many fields of science these days suffer from dishonest and attention seeking researchers and professors, overhyping their results on media, fudging experiments etc. We need to make science actively painful (cut all funding, regularly jail them, condemn them to obscurity, make sure no one wants to date them etc.) so it only attracts people in it for the right reasons :)

karencarits 4y ago
> Many fields of science these days suffer from dishonest and attention seeking researchers and professors, overhyping their results on media, fudging experiments etc. And the administration loves them for it! And they will happily book expensive influencers and self-made media personalities to arrange workshops and courses in how to present your research in the simplest and most emotional ways - to maximize engagement and outreach. It's almost funny to see the disbelief in researchers' eyes when the extroverted influencer brings them the microphone and asks: ignore for a moment the specifics of your research, what are the three qualities that makes YOU unique and special?
constantcrying 4y ago
One commenter on that article points out that there is a symbiotic relation between scientists, the press and the public. All of them desire spectacular results and there is little incentive to ever play down a paper. The result is that scientists "polish" their results when communicating to the press, who again make sure that it "sounds good". In the end the public usually gets the truth only in so far as "could" means "there is a low but nonzero chance of this ever working, but only if there are massive engineering efforts and many more breakthroughs and economic and resource incentives line up right". Putting scientists into the media game, instead of isolating them was a grave mistake. It even creates competition for gtants, based on how "flashy" the results are.
- sroussey 4y ago
  In the realm of technology, scientists are the idea guys. Lots of good ideas out there. But you need entrepreneurs and engineers and capital in order to see if it is something that will be useful to the public. It may takes years of work, PhDs, and lots of research costs to get the findings (idea), but in the end ideas themselves are cheap.
tppiotrowski 4y ago
Long gone is the age of self-funded aristocrat scientists who experimented to satisfy their curiosity. Curious if there's any renowned independent scientists producing research at home and sharing directly online (bypassing universities and journals)
- zmachinaz 4y ago
  Might go back to this model over time. Guess it is no secret that academia is in strong decline. Lot of excellent people just don't bother anymore to enter that circus. They might do their own independent research after they succeeded financially.
  - boringg 4y ago
    Too expensive to get access to what is needed for independent research.
    - birdman3131 4y ago
      It is possible to do surprising amounts on a shoestring budget. Ive seen cheap (Sub $1k) electron microscopes go up for sale. As well as a ton of other lab equipment.
    - zmachinaz 4y ago
      Do you think research equipment was cheap during the time of "aristocrat scientists" ? The point being here "after they succeeded financially".
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  Isn't all the science that is possible to do "at home" already done?
  - gus_massa 4y ago
    Most of it, but there are some corners. For example, high temperature superconductivity was discovered in 1986 [1]. The process is not so complicated, and can be done at home. Well, at least in a very good personal lab, for example see this video by Applied Science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLFaa6RPJIU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLFaa6RPJIU I think the original team made like 100 samples using different metals and different oxygen proportion. Discovering the first one requires some brute force that needs a small team, and is too much for a single person. Anyway, it doesn't look too far away from something a single person can discover. [1] That's 36 year ago. I'm feeling old...
disentanglement 4y ago
> cut all funding, regularly jail them, condemn them to obscurity I can't even begin to describe how overjoyed I am to finally have found a fellow campaigner for implementing the glorious techniques of Maoist China in dealing with free thought.
- mistermann 4y ago
  There is a big difference between free thought and making false claims, scientific or otherwise.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    There’s no difference when the person with the gun is deciding what’s true.
    - mistermann 4y ago
      A gun can override the difference, but the difference itself remains.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Case #1,209,096 of how when Americans do (or propose doing) something, it's somehow China's fault.
mhh__ 4y ago
Considering string theory's historical origins come from solving real physics problems this strikes me as rude and aggressive. No comment on the quantum computing, don't know anything about it.
plaguepilled 4y ago
String theory as it currently exists is very different to how it started. The original use case was actually as a precursor to the current model for partons: QCD. (Side note: there is still another theory in QCD research that is used, called the Lund string model, but it is not related to string theory and should not be compared. I just bring it up for completeness) This is not to say that I disagree with being more critical of science initiatives, but that heavy-handed approaches like jail and social punishment are not the silver bullet you may think they are. Theories get repurposed very frequently between departments and the relationship between a line of enquiry and the results it may produce is not always linear. Really, science communication (especially from news outlets) itself should be defunded, as it misrepresents the topics discussed. In its place, (structured, public) science EDUCATION should be funded.

by dkural 4y ago

karencarits 4y ago

> Many fields of science these days suffer from dishonest and attention seeking researchers and professors, overhyping their results on media, fudging experiments etc. And the administration loves them for it! And they will happily book expensive influencers and self-made media personalities to arrange workshops and courses in how to present your research in the simplest and most emotional ways - to maximize engagement and outreach. It's almost funny to see the disbelief in researchers' eyes when the extroverted influencer brings them the microphone and asks: ignore for a moment the specifics of your research, what are the three qualities that makes YOU unique and special?

constantcrying 4y ago

One commenter on that article points out that there is a symbiotic relation between scientists, the press and the public. All of them desire spectacular results and there is little incentive to ever play down a paper. The result is that scientists "polish" their results when communicating to the press, who again make sure that it "sounds good". In the end the public usually gets the truth only in so far as "could" means "there is a low but nonzero chance of this ever working, but only if there are massive engineering efforts and many more breakthroughs and economic and resource incentives line up right". Putting scientists into the media game, instead of isolating them was a grave mistake. It even creates competition for gtants, based on how "flashy" the results are.

sroussey 4y ago
In the realm of technology, scientists are the idea guys. Lots of good ideas out there. But you need entrepreneurs and engineers and capital in order to see if it is something that will be useful to the public. It may takes years of work, PhDs, and lots of research costs to get the findings (idea), but in the end ideas themselves are cheap.

tppiotrowski 4y ago

Long gone is the age of self-funded aristocrat scientists who experimented to satisfy their curiosity. Curious if there's any renowned independent scientists producing research at home and sharing directly online (bypassing universities and journals)

zmachinaz 4y ago
Might go back to this model over time. Guess it is no secret that academia is in strong decline. Lot of excellent people just don't bother anymore to enter that circus. They might do their own independent research after they succeeded financially.
- boringg 4y ago
  Too expensive to get access to what is needed for independent research.
  - birdman3131 4y ago
    It is possible to do surprising amounts on a shoestring budget. Ive seen cheap (Sub $1k) electron microscopes go up for sale. As well as a ton of other lab equipment.
  - zmachinaz 4y ago
    Do you think research equipment was cheap during the time of "aristocrat scientists" ? The point being here "after they succeeded financially".
SoftTalker 4y ago
Isn't all the science that is possible to do "at home" already done?
- gus_massa 4y ago
  Most of it, but there are some corners. For example, high temperature superconductivity was discovered in 1986 [1]. The process is not so complicated, and can be done at home. Well, at least in a very good personal lab, for example see this video by Applied Science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLFaa6RPJIU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLFaa6RPJIU I think the original team made like 100 samples using different metals and different oxygen proportion. Discovering the first one requires some brute force that needs a small team, and is too much for a single person. Anyway, it doesn't look too far away from something a single person can discover. [1] That's 36 year ago. I'm feeling old...

disentanglement 4y ago

> cut all funding, regularly jail them, condemn them to obscurity I can't even begin to describe how overjoyed I am to finally have found a fellow campaigner for implementing the glorious techniques of Maoist China in dealing with free thought.

mistermann 4y ago
There is a big difference between free thought and making false claims, scientific or otherwise.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- colechristensen 4y ago
  There’s no difference when the person with the gun is deciding what’s true.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    A gun can override the difference, but the difference itself remains.
pessimizer 4y ago
Case #1,209,096 of how when Americans do (or propose doing) something, it's somehow China's fault.

mhh__ 4y ago

Considering string theory's historical origins come from solving real physics problems this strikes me as rude and aggressive. No comment on the quantum computing, don't know anything about it.

plaguepilled 4y ago

String theory as it currently exists is very different to how it started. The original use case was actually as a precursor to the current model for partons: QCD. (Side note: there is still another theory in QCD research that is used, called the Lund string model, but it is not related to string theory and should not be compared. I just bring it up for completeness) This is not to say that I disagree with being more critical of science initiatives, but that heavy-handed approaches like jail and social punishment are not the silver bullet you may think they are. Theories get repurposed very frequently between departments and the relationship between a line of enquiry and the results it may produce is not always linear. Really, science communication (especially from news outlets) itself should be defunded, as it misrepresents the topics discussed. In its place, (structured, public) science EDUCATION should be funded.