3 ms·
This remarkable diagnostic x-ray of the recent world of academic science work is more candid than anything I've seen before. And it's quite accurate (so far as
by 8bitsrule 3y ago
This remarkable diagnostic x-ray of the recent world of academic science work is more candid than anything I've seen before. And it's quite accurate (so far as I know from my study of physics history, at least as far back as the time of Ms. Leavitt, Mrs. Einstein, and Mrs. Curie (but not Caroline Herschel ). The picture also goes a long ways towards explaining a lot of today's adherence to old paradigms and resistance to new evidence. (Not changed much since the days of Kuhn and Feyerabend.)
- rapjr9 3y agoI agree, it's quite accurate from what I've seen in 20 years of working in computer science. It also explains why there are no big breakthroughs today like in the old days of science. People can't decide their path of study and most research funding is only approved for projects that are 3-5 years in length and hence only have time for doing something incremental rather than new or fundamental. There are fads in science also which make it hard to get funding that is not in tune with the current fashion (string theory, AI, wireless networking). Sometimes I think that the atomic bomb so scared the world (is still scaring the world) that basic research is being kept on a leash so that nothing too disruptive is invented or discovered. The people who are at the peak of their skills are too junior to get significant grants and have to work for/on whatever the older guard chooses to work on. The older guard has been well trained in how to only apply for grants they are likely to get and not try anything too radical. edited to add: I have not seen so much of the misogyny she mentions, perhaps because many of the PI's I worked for were women. Still, there are not a lot of women in computer science.