4 ms·

A lot of modern science is just fishing for funding to keep running a big machine at something then having the ordained priests interpret the output Instead of

by nimish 2y ago

A lot of modern science is just fishing for funding to keep running a big machine at something then having the ordained priests interpret the output Instead of inventing something interesting like "we're able to scan the elemental composition of every galaxy within a radius within seconds" i.e. solve the problem rather than create useless papers and PR.

sho_hn 2y ago
The problem with building the factory for the Model T of galaxy scanners is the limited customer audience.
- nimish 2y ago
  So? The whole point of academia is that they aren't bound by customers. Except that's been subverted by having to kowtow to funding agencies and universities most concerned with accruing and distributing money. Defeating the whole point of having them in the first place! Free and open markets are far more efficient at distributing and allocating capital.
  - MattPalmer1086 2y ago
    You are confusing academia with science. A lot of science is done in academia, but a lot is also done in the commercial sector. Obviously the commercial sector won't typically fund things unless there is some probable payback, so they are not so good at doing fundamental research. You need both to get the best returns.
    - nimish 2y ago
      I'm explicitly not. And you have no idea how much fundamental research happens in the commercial sector because there's no incentive to publish it -- why would I publish the trade secrets for you to exploit? For the record, work I've done under NDA would easily disprove a number of academic theories right now but there's no way I could get the companies to allow me to publish it (nor would I want to tank their stock). Furthermore, academia doesn't do research unless there's a payback either in papers or prestige. What academia are you thinking of that allows for the pure pursuit of whatever's interesting?
      - MattPalmer1086 2y ago
        I did say a lot of research is done commercially. Academia will do non commercial research though, because they are motivated by prestige, not money. I think we are violently agreeing!
MattPalmer1086 2y ago
Scientists have to publish a lot of papers (even useless ones) because that is how we have decided to rate them, for better or worse. And yes, they all mostly need to fish for funding to keep their not-so-well paid jobs going. They are hardly "ordained priests" though. I think you are trying to insult them, but not really sure what you even mean. They are pretty much by definition highly intelligent people who could earn a lot more by working for FAANG or hedge funds, but prefer to take lower paid work on the off chance they get to discover something interesting about the universe we live in. So not much like priests then.
- cozyman 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - moi2388 2y ago
    Claims to know..
- nimish 2y ago
  > They are pretty much by definition highly intelligent people who could earn a lot more by working for FAANG or hedge funds Having interviewed many failed priests of higher education, this is not true. It might have been true 50 years ago, but if you are smart and intelligent you typically do not spend 5-7 of the most productive years of your life getting a PhD. >but prefer to take lower paid work on the off chance they get to discover something interesting about the universe we live in. So not much like priests then. This is exactly what priests do for religion right? Academics are ordained priests educated in the Seminary of Higher Education. You need to be granted a Doctor of Philosophy in order to join the Church of Higher Education, and then maybe a few decades of cloistered contemplation and publishing of prayers to the funding agencies will let you do something useful.
  - MattPalmer1086 2y ago
    Everyone I've met with a PhD was intelligent. Maybe not genius, but yeah, pretty damn intelligent. If you want to spend your life in the pursuit of knowledge rather than mere money or status, it's kind of a prerequisite to demonstrate you can perform original research. I honestly don't get the analogy with priests. They still seem utterly different to me.

by nimish 2y ago

sho_hn 2y ago

The problem with building the factory for the Model T of galaxy scanners is the limited customer audience.

nimish 2y ago
So? The whole point of academia is that they aren't bound by customers. Except that's been subverted by having to kowtow to funding agencies and universities most concerned with accruing and distributing money. Defeating the whole point of having them in the first place! Free and open markets are far more efficient at distributing and allocating capital.
- MattPalmer1086 2y ago
  You are confusing academia with science. A lot of science is done in academia, but a lot is also done in the commercial sector. Obviously the commercial sector won't typically fund things unless there is some probable payback, so they are not so good at doing fundamental research. You need both to get the best returns.
  - nimish 2y ago
    I'm explicitly not. And you have no idea how much fundamental research happens in the commercial sector because there's no incentive to publish it -- why would I publish the trade secrets for you to exploit? For the record, work I've done under NDA would easily disprove a number of academic theories right now but there's no way I could get the companies to allow me to publish it (nor would I want to tank their stock). Furthermore, academia doesn't do research unless there's a payback either in papers or prestige. What academia are you thinking of that allows for the pure pursuit of whatever's interesting?
    - MattPalmer1086 2y ago
      I did say a lot of research is done commercially. Academia will do non commercial research though, because they are motivated by prestige, not money. I think we are violently agreeing!

MattPalmer1086 2y ago

Scientists have to publish a lot of papers (even useless ones) because that is how we have decided to rate them, for better or worse. And yes, they all mostly need to fish for funding to keep their not-so-well paid jobs going. They are hardly "ordained priests" though. I think you are trying to insult them, but not really sure what you even mean. They are pretty much by definition highly intelligent people who could earn a lot more by working for FAANG or hedge funds, but prefer to take lower paid work on the off chance they get to discover something interesting about the universe we live in. So not much like priests then.

cozyman 2y ago
[flagged]
- moi2388 2y ago
  Claims to know..
nimish 2y ago
> They are pretty much by definition highly intelligent people who could earn a lot more by working for FAANG or hedge funds Having interviewed many failed priests of higher education, this is not true. It might have been true 50 years ago, but if you are smart and intelligent you typically do not spend 5-7 of the most productive years of your life getting a PhD. >but prefer to take lower paid work on the off chance they get to discover something interesting about the universe we live in. So not much like priests then. This is exactly what priests do for religion right? Academics are ordained priests educated in the Seminary of Higher Education. You need to be granted a Doctor of Philosophy in order to join the Church of Higher Education, and then maybe a few decades of cloistered contemplation and publishing of prayers to the funding agencies will let you do something useful.
- MattPalmer1086 2y ago
  Everyone I've met with a PhD was intelligent. Maybe not genius, but yeah, pretty damn intelligent. If you want to spend your life in the pursuit of knowledge rather than mere money or status, it's kind of a prerequisite to demonstrate you can perform original research. I honestly don't get the analogy with priests. They still seem utterly different to me.