5 ms·
There are always people who say "Science is still the best way of determining true statements" in response to these articles. But this isn't science. It's pur
by powera 13y ago
There are always people who say "Science is still the best way of determining true statements" in response to these articles.
But this isn't science. It's pure politics. And politics is probably the worst way of determining true statements.
- crusso 13y agoExactly. The very nature of the tools used to advance and succeed in politics are anathema to doing good science. Treating science like you treat politics or marketing is akin to going to war in the name of Jesus or Gandhi.
- qznc 13y agoThe hard problem is: How to fund science, without also funding "politicians" (or liars or whatever)?
- dnautics 13y agoReach into your pocketbook, pull out that blank check, write in the figures and a signature, and send it in the mail. Most science research orgs are 501(c)3 organizations - for whatever that's worth - in any case they will be happy to take your money.
- qznc 13y agoBasically,you suggest crowd-funding or patronage depending on my bank account. I believe these approaches are even more susceptible to dazzlers.
- dnautics 13y agoyou've never met a federal grants administrator, have you? I've met only two non-stupid ones, ever. The first was my neighbor as a child (who was a physics administrator for the NSF who had the foresight to argue to pull the SSC - because of serious problems with the site - to say the least), the second was my former boss, who quit her highly successful position in academia (long story, won't get into her reasons for doing so). To be less flippant: There's MORE accountability. If you crowd-fund, people will criticize you publically. when was the last time you saw public comment on an NIH grants review? On a DARPA Call for Proposal? If you don't take public money, to a first approximation you get ONE chance to screw things up by dazzling people. The next time, people are more likely to be wise onto your shenanigans. Think of it this way: Yes, there are spectacular failures on kickstarter. But yet, there are still good projects that get funded. The economic model, despite all of its naysayers, STILL works to produce good content. Think of all the video games that have successfully migrated to the platform with private micropatronage, and contrast with this: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/06/_38_studios_and_kingdoms_of_amalur_how_curt_schilling_s_video_game_company_duped_rhode_island_out_of_75_million_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/06/_38_... Now, consider that this may be happening in publically funded academic science (Arsenic Life, for example).
- qznc 13y agoI agree that a kickstarter for science would be an interesting experiment. It would be quite a change for scientists, if they have to propose to the public instead of experts and politicians. I'm in Germany, so no direct experience with the US system. Nevertheless, the symptoms are the basically the same here.
- neumann 13y agoThere is already a few: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1azr7w/why_isnt_there_a_kickstarter_for_scientific/ http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1azr7w/why_isnt_t...
- ExpiredLink 13y ago> "Science is still the best way of determining true statements" Science is still the best way to refute false statements.
- sillysaurus2 13y ago... mathematically-testable false statements. Most hypotheses in life aren't, such as "If I become a poet, then I'll be happy." That seems like kind of an absurd example, but thinking along those lines reveals how startlingly few hypotheses fall within the domain of science.
- DerpDerpDerp 13y agoI... isn't this a rather testable hypothesis? It just would be a very time consuming experiment to run, and the cost of being wrong would be high, but I don't see how it isn't possible to get empirical results about if being a poet would, in fact, make you happy.
- alexlawford 13y agoIt would be easy enough to show that becoming a poet didn't make someone happy. But if they became a poet, and then became happy? Surely its pretty obvious that the connection wouldn't be testable in the slightest.
- sillysaurus2 13y agoActually, the success of science is its ability to predict what will occur in a wide variety of situations. Otherwise science wouldn't have been such a big deal. If it were possible to specify how much happiness is enough, and how much happiness isn't, precisely, then it would be science. That's the only way to make generalizations from the results. But the threshold of happiness is imprecise, so therefore it's not science.