Govt is paying for this stuff, its reasonable they should have a say, I guess if they don't like it they can seek alternative funding
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-04-29 03:14:14)
Fuck Israel
unsure if srs
imagine if someone like clive palmer or gina rheinhart was in charge of deciding what csiro should research. oh lord.
We need to do more tubes research to make the internet faster.
Well, I object to the sense of entitlement in many parts of academia, and the govt should have some say on the direction of research if the govt is paying for it.
Fuck Israel
you really have absolutely no comprehension of how research works hey
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
yeah because mixing science and politics is a good idea.
guessing this is directed at dilbert... in which case, yep, i know, it's truly depressing. guy has an engineering degree and yet posts with lip-licking satisfaction about how 'real' science research works, and how 'useless' humanities research is. makes me just want to scratch my head in disbelief, really. he can't even accommodate two different forms of knowledge/'progress' in his head, let alone understand the history of philosophy/intellectual ideas, and how it is still profitable to study older periods/material, with new theories and cognates. pretty hilarious that he'll also argue til blue in the face for a different definition of what 'pure science' research is... even though you're doing it now, and he's never done any. taking the john galt ignore feature approach is a little lame... but i feel relieved of an an onerous and inane task already.Spark wrote:
you really have absolutely no comprehension of how research works hey
about your point with government funding stipulating its own criteria... yep, this is slowly encroaching on academic freedom here, too. total tragedy the more and more the managerial-class and politically-concerned can influence research. you start to get ugly funding criteria sneaking into assessments such as 'relevance', which is a VERY loaded term, when you consider who defines this 'relevance', and with what authority... whole academics' careers being made or broken on the whimsical premise that their work might not be appealing to some party-political apparatchik. 'trendy' and 'in vogue' (meaning a politician somewhere is relying upon recourse to them for more votes/support) topics like environmental research or writing on multiculturalism takes precedence over other things - things equally valid, of course. knowledge should always retain its autonomy, regardless of politics (nobody wants a repeat of soviet art, or the fascist academy), and even as much free from economic worries as possible. otherwise the pursuit of new knowledge and scholarship is not disinterested and impartial, which is, of course, utterly vital to 'good' research in both the sciences/humanities. can you even imagine a future where academics have to cynically submit research that appeases the current political powers-that-be? the research fiddling and topic-twisting that would go along with a culture where every academic has to 'justify' their work to a philistine, who only wants to extract political capital or 'use-value' from it? it's the sort of policy dilbert would come up with.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-29 04:33:19)
you must be trolling. you want to stop talking about science research so you can pie-in-the-sky think about finding "17th century comparable aliens". do you have any idea how stupid that entire premise is? if we find alien life of any kind, there is almost no chance they will resemble humans. lol the fact you guys are imagining some world off in the cosmos somewhere that is basically a parallel of earth, only with steam-punk technology or something so yeah, cry about the current discussion in the 'science' thread, and then go on to talk about your 'bioshock infinite' science.Macbeth wrote:
I'm interested in hearing what people think we should do with less technologically advanced aliens if we were to find them.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-29 04:35:51)
If I'm on ignore why keep mentioning me?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
guessing this is directed at dilbert... in which case, yep, i know, it's truly depressing. guy has an engineering degree and yet posts with lip-licking satisfaction about how 'real' science research works, and how 'useless' humanities research is. makes me just want to scratch my head in disbelief, really. he can't even accommodate two different forms of knowledge/'progress' in his head, let alone understand the history of philosophy/intellectual ideas, and how it is still profitable to study older periods/material, with new theories and cognates. pretty hilarious that he'll also argue til blue in the face for a different definition of what 'pure science' research is... even though you're doing it now, and he's never done any. taking the john galt ignore feature approach is a little lame... but i feel relieved of an an onerous and inane task already.Spark wrote:
you really have absolutely no comprehension of how research works hey
about your point with government funding stipulating its own criteria... yep, this is slowly encroaching on academic freedom here, too. total tragedy the more and more the managerial-class and politically-concerned can influence research. you start to get ugly funding criteria sneaking into assessments such as 'relevance', which is a VERY loaded term, when you consider who defines this 'relevance', and with what authority... whole academics' careers being made or broken on the whimsical premise that their work might not be appealing to some party-political apparatchik. 'trendy' and 'in vogue' (meaning a politician somewhere is relying upon recourse to them for more votes/support) topics like environmental research or writing on multiculturalism takes precedence over other things - things equally valid, of course. knowledge should always retain its autonomy, regardless of politics (nobody wants a repeat of soviet art, or the fascist academy), and even as much free from economic worries as possible. otherwise the pursuit of new knowledge and scholarship is not disinterested and impartial, which is, of course, utterly vital to 'good' research in both the sciences/humanities. can you even imagine a future where academics have to cynically submit research that appeases the current political powers-that-be? the research fiddling and topic-twisting that would go along with a culture where every academic has to 'justify' their work to a philistine, who only wants to extract political capital or 'use-value' from it? it's the sort of policy dilbert would come up with.
Why shouldn't academia be exposed to market pressures? Govts don't have unlimited money to fund dilettantes to follow their noses.
Non-academics are all philistines, OK......
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-04-29 04:44:09)
Fuck Israel
There's already a serious problem in that regard that I assume you've heard of, where patently serious but challenging and expensive fields are being seriously undermanned because of political/"economic" considerations.can you even imagine a future where academics have to cynically submit research that appeases the current political powers-that-be? the research fiddling and topic-twisting that would go along with a culture where every academic has to 'justify' their work to a philistine, who only wants to extract political capital or 'use-value' from it? it's the sort of policy dilbert would come up with.
Like this.
Because coupling scientific research to the market is the quickest way to kill it.Why shouldn't academia be exposed to market pressures? Govts don't have unlimited money to fund dilettantes to follow their noses.
Last edited by Spark (2013-04-29 04:57:48)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
i just linked that research scientist woe article earlier, to dilbert, though i doubt he read it. just another taste of the reality of that 'plush', 'toff' lifestyle. and the high-regard society has for 'noble' science research, in general - even science research with an explicit use and 'benefit'. let alone the stuff that is theoretical and abstract! and yeah, i know. shackling scholarship and free inquiry to not-very-free political needs will just turn the campus environment and the professors into a lap-dog class for whatever political ideologue happens to be holding the reins. academia is becoming everywhere undermined by this pernicious market-ideology and 'use value'. that adorno quotation i posted earlier was spot-on in diagnosing this tendency... in 1950. still not idea how spearhead read it as a critique on "education" methods. some people really are just not cut out for philosophy.
My mistake, popped up on twitter.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i just linked that research scientist woe article earlier, to dilbert, though i doubt he read it. just another taste of the reality of that 'plush', 'toff' lifestyle. and the high-regard society has for 'noble' science research, in general - even science research with an explicit use and 'benefit'. let alone the stuff that is theoretical and abstract! and yeah, i know. shackling scholarship and free inquiry to not-very-free political needs will just turn the campus environment and the professors into a lap-dog class for whatever political ideologue happens to be holding the reins. academia is becoming everywhere undermined by this pernicious market-ideology and 'use value'. that adorno quotation i posted earlier was spot-on in diagnosing this tendency... in 1950. still not idea how spearhead read it as a critique on "education" methods. some people really are just not cut out for philosophy.
In the end, you can't do "applied" research like new semiconductors or better batteries or breast cancer treatments without the underlying, core science behind it which helps us understand the theory and the frameworks which fundamentally underpin everything we do as scientists.
And besides, I would suggest that seemingly "random, pointless" scientific research has more than paid for itself economically, cf. this 1978 paper on the search for black holes with microsecond-scale lifetimes, which gave us WiFi as a byproduct.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
yes, but the value and enterprise of theoretical research is 'knowledge for knowledge's sake'. nobody went into that research aiming to create an application or technical benefit. dilbert's idea is that all academic research that doesn't aim for real-life praxis or technical-material gain is 'self-indulgent' and hence 'useless', the vast majority of theoretical science research is just this - especially at PhD level, which we seem to be focusing on. 90% of early-career science PhD's will be just as inapplicable to real-world gain as any humanities paper. they are exercises in proving a research scientist is 'at the bar' required, as much as they try to make incremental boosts in knowledge for whatever tiny micro-niche the paper is on.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-29 05:14:16)
My idea that academic research which produces nothing whatever is a pointless indulgence is reasonable I think, especially in current times.
People can prove they're 'at the bar', if thats their thing - which for many it isn't, just as effectively doing something potentially useful - such as medical research or maths - as they can pontificating about what a long dead fiction writer was really trying to say.
People can prove they're 'at the bar', if thats their thing - which for many it isn't, just as effectively doing something potentially useful - such as medical research or maths - as they can pontificating about what a long dead fiction writer was really trying to say.
Fuck Israel
You seriously expect an unlimited purse provided by the government without any strings attached? You're coming across as supremely naive in this thread recently.Spark wrote:
you really have absolutely no comprehension of how research works hey
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Who said anything about unlimited?Jay wrote:
You seriously expect an unlimited purse provided by the government without any strings attached? You're coming across as supremely naive in this thread recently.Spark wrote:
you really have absolutely no comprehension of how research works hey
Scientific research subject to approval by a political committee is one of the dumbest things I've heard. The current grants system is already problematic enough without making it subject to the ideological whims of a bunch of politicians who wouldn't have the faintest idea of how science works.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Really? You think so? I dunno, Apple and other tech companies seem to spend a lot of money on R&D. Why shouldn't people expect results to come from spending their money. The money doesn't belong to some faceless government, it belongs to the people. If you fuck around in a lab and produce nothing, you're stealing money from your own mother and father, your sisters and brothers and neighbors. Yeah, how dare they expect a return on investmentSpark wrote:
There's already a serious problem in that regard that I assume you've heard of, where patently serious but challenging and expensive fields are being seriously undermanned because of political/"economic" considerations.can you even imagine a future where academics have to cynically submit research that appeases the current political powers-that-be? the research fiddling and topic-twisting that would go along with a culture where every academic has to 'justify' their work to a philistine, who only wants to extract political capital or 'use-value' from it? it's the sort of policy dilbert would come up with.
Like this.Because coupling scientific research to the market is the quickest way to kill it.Why shouldn't academia be exposed to market pressures? Govts don't have unlimited money to fund dilettantes to follow their noses.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
They run the rest of the country, I don't see that academia should be exempt.current grants system is already problematic enough without making it subject to the ideological whims of a bunch of politicians who wouldn't have the faintest idea of how science works.
The idea that the govt must make available a pile of money for academics to do what they like with is rapidly dying.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-04-29 05:35:08)
Fuck Israel
It's kind of funny too, because academics are always the first in line to say how we need enlightened leadership controlling the masses in order to help them make the correct decisions. Of course, academia expects to rule, not to see that gun pointed in their own direction...
Last edited by Jay (2013-04-29 05:37:01)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Did Apple discover the theory that underpins their research? Or do the experiments that wrote their physics?Jay wrote:
Really? You think so? I dunno, Apple and other tech companies seem to spend a lot of money on R&D. Why shouldn't people expect results to come from spending their money. The money doesn't belong to some faceless government, it belongs to the people. If you fuck around in a lab and produce nothing, you're stealing money from your own mother and father, your sisters and brothers and neighbors. Yeah, how dare they expect a return on investmentSpark wrote:
There's already a serious problem in that regard that I assume you've heard of, where patently serious but challenging and expensive fields are being seriously undermanned because of political/"economic" considerations.can you even imagine a future where academics have to cynically submit research that appeases the current political powers-that-be? the research fiddling and topic-twisting that would go along with a culture where every academic has to 'justify' their work to a philistine, who only wants to extract political capital or 'use-value' from it? it's the sort of policy dilbert would come up with.
Like this.Because coupling scientific research to the market is the quickest way to kill it.Why shouldn't academia be exposed to market pressures? Govts don't have unlimited money to fund dilettantes to follow their noses.
As I said above, pure scientific research has paid for itself many times over, usually indirectly or in unexpected ways. To expect some kind of idea ---> paper ---> invention process... sorry, doesn't work like that. Never has, never will.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
academia expects to rule? LOL. academia wants as little to do with politics/the market as possible. academia wants autonomy, to conduct research according to the principles of free intellectual inquiry, as opposed to propaganda-pushes or market 'demand'. where the fuck do you get the idea from that academia wants to "rule"? the only thing it wants to 'rule' is its own research content. if the issue of public money is really that problematic, i'm sure many top research institutions would sooner adopt a private funding model, rather than have a group of scientifically/philosophically illiterate managers tell them what they can and can't research. research by committee/focus-group is a terrible idea. academics are not apple. they are not trying to design a product to appeal to as many people as possible. they are specialists.Jay wrote:
It's kind of funny too, because academics are always the first in line to say how we need enlightened leadership controlling the masses in order to help them make the correct decisions. Of course, academia expects to rule, not to see that gun pointed in their own direction...
Like, seriously. This goes to the heart of what science is and what scientists actually do.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an … tives.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an … tives.html
Since Sen. William Proxmire's Golden Fleece awards in the 1970s and 1980s, basic science projects are periodically singled out by people with political agendas to highlight how government “wastes” taxpayer money on seemingly foolish research. These arguments misrepresent the distinction between and the roles of basic and applied science. Basic science is not aimed at solving an immediate practical problem. Basic science is an integral part of scientific progress, but individual projects may sound meaningless when taken out of context. Basic science often ends up solving problems anyway, but it is just not designed for this purpose. Applied science builds upon basic science, so they are inextricably linked. As an example, Geckskin™ is a new adhesive product with myriad applications developed by my colleagues at the University of Massachusetts. Their work is based on several decades of basic research on gecko locomotion.
Whether the government should fund basic research in times of economic crisis is a valid question that deserves well-informed discourse comparing all governmental expenses. As a scientist, my view is that supporting basic and applied research is essential to keep the United States ahead in the global economy. The government cannot afford not to make that investment. In fact, I argue that research spending should increase dramatically for the United States to continue to lead the world in scientific discovery. Investment in the NSF is just over $20 per year per person, while it takes upward of $2,000 per year per person to fund the military. Basic research has to be funded by the government rather than private investors because there are no immediate profits to be derived from it.
Because the NSF budget is so small, and because we have so many well-qualified scientists in need of funds, competition to obtain grants is fierce, and funding rates at the time this research was funded had fallen well below 10 percent. Congress decides the total amount of money that the NSF gets from the budget, but it does not decide which individual projects are funded—and neither does the president or his administration. Funding decisions are made by panels of scientists who are experts in the field and based on peer review by outsiders, often the competitors of the scientists who submitted the proposal. The review panel ranks proposals on their intellectual merits and impacts to society before making a recommendation. This recommendation is then acted upon by program officers and other administrators, who are also scientists, at the NSF.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I'm a strong believer in fundamental scientific research, as are most govts. But the sums being spent are now astronomical and spending has to be prioritised. The govt is entitled to direct how taxpayer money is spent.
But they want the money to do it, academics are OK with that part of politics/the market.UTL wrote:
academia wants as little to do with politics/the market as possible. academia wants autonomy, to conduct research according to the principles of free intellectual inquiry
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-04-29 05:45:14)
Fuck Israel