BF2S Forums D&ST - Science

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

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...

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.

They are sucking at the public tit in order to do so. That is a luxury, not a right.

Besides, if you had seen some of the ridiculous shit that is awarded grant money in this country you would all want some form of oversight too. I doubt science grants are in trouble, it's aimed at sociologists receiving grant money to study the behavior of gay men in Argentinian night clubs and the like.

Jay wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

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...

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.

They are sucking at the public tit in order to do so. That is a luxury, not a right.

one of the last remaining benefits that western states genuinely have over BRIC(K) countries and the developing world is our knowledge economy. we are ahead in terms of knowledge, cutting-edge research, culture, etc. "sucking at the public tit" is a very one-sided way to phrase it - it's also one of the few parts of civic life keeping certain western countries as world-leading. attracting intellectuals and talent and workers from all over the world - to contribute and enrich that society. most of america's technological leads and great invention comes as a result of foreign intellectuals and the world's best thinkers all flocking to america, to find careers and support in your university system. "sucking at the public tit". i'd say they give a lot back to society... and ensure that society's eminence, furthermore. even if in ways that are not directly quantifiable, or reducible down to a balance sheet.

i don't believe academia should have an infinite budget. i don't think academia feels 'entitled'. i just think academia wants - and deserves - freedom to do what it wants (within reason; obviously no gold-plated sinks) with the public money that is allocated it. mingling market-demands or politics with the aims of intellectual research will inevitably stifle, suffocate, and ultimately retard intellectual development. i'd be more in support of universities going totally private than ever being 'directed' by a paternalistic manager-class, trying to extract 'measurable results' and 'profitable patents'-- let alone 'political victories' (shudder). i'm fine with debates over academic funding, as long as it doesn't stray into the point where the uneducated, non-specialists try to dictate what the specialists should actually research. that is way out of their bounds and area of expertise.

i would also raise the rather common point that the "public tit" is drained by many other things, and many worse things, and many more expensive follies... academia, again, gives back plenty to society and civic life. people are fine dropping millions of tonnes of high-ordnance bombs on remote afghan mountains, achieving nothing, but then they get uncomfortable when a research scientist asks for $35,000 to do something they don't understand. okay. society needs to check its priorities, in my opinion. not academia having to stop "wanting to wield power". i hardly think academia is asking much to do its work - in the bigger picture, anyway. think how much public money goes to funding universities in america/uk/europe/australia, and then think of the prestige and images associated by foreigners with 'oxbridge', 'harvard-yale', etc. again: economic competition in the next few centuries is going to be VERY interesting: western powers, however, will always be ahead on 'knowledge capital' and 'cultural capital' - so long as we keep our universities with pride of place.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-29 05:55:42)

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i'm fine with debates over academic funding, as long as it doesn't stray into the point where the uneducated, non-specialists try to dictate what the specialists should actually research. that is way out of their bounds and area of expertise.

My god, the snobbery is boundless.

powers, however, will always be ahead on 'knowledge capital' and 'cultural capital' - so long as we keep our universities with pride of place.

The problem with this quaint theory is that knowledge is the most easily transferred commodity there is.
If its published by academia its available for free, so the people who paid for it most likely won't benefit at all.

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i'm fine with debates over academic funding, as long as it doesn't stray into the point where the uneducated, non-specialists try to dictate what the specialists should actually research. that is way out of their bounds and area of expertise.

My god, the snobbery is boundless.

powers, however, will always be ahead on 'knowledge capital' and 'cultural capital' - so long as we keep our universities with pride of place.

The problem with this quaint theory is that knowledge is the most easily transferred commodity there is.
If its published by academia its available for free, so the people who paid for it most likely won't benefit at all.

Too bad all academic writing is sitting behind massive pay walls...

lol, dilbert. i swear this guy is trying to be categorically wrong on everything he posts about. such pitiful understanding.

firstly, how is it "boundless snobbery" to insist non-specialists don't dictate the content of specialists work? it's the same sentiments dilbert would feel if a manager with a business/finance degree tried to look over his shoulder and give advice/direction on his engineering design. the exact same thing. if you're going to publicly fund academics, that's fine, but do so with the traditional (and key) principle of 'free enquiry' intact. science/maths directed towards 'profitable' or 'patent-able' ends does not create great intellectual development. a manager derived from a managerial-business class telling a person with 20+ years of research experience 'what to do' is a rankling idea. "boundless snobbery"? please. boundless bias and petty resentment, maybe.

and no, knowledge is not "the most easily transferred commodity". if it was, universities would be in ruins. everyone would be taking online courses or enrolling at open universities. the fact is the university still has a lot of benefits and premiums on 'knowledge' - or at least enough to still argue practically for their benefits w/r/t an international cachet of scholars and ambitious workers. and no, "academic writing" is not "available for free". it never has been. the main corpus of it likely never will be. it is extremely expensive for a lay-person to get access to an academic journal. could your statements be any more factually incorrect? you have been posting in this thread for months with a seemingly obstinate insistence on being wrong, yet arguing as if you have a clue...

oh, and before you rant about that fact (which i won't have the pleasure to read), let me disclaim by saying it's a reality of the publishing industry, not academia. academics have to negotiate and deal with the measures/economics imposed on their work by the academic publishing industry themselves. many academics are trying to reform that, and are starting 'outsider' journals with open-access at their core. so don't use that as more stupid ammo in your dumb anti-academia arguments. not that research or facts have interested you thus far...

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-29 07:00:05)

Jay wrote:

Academic research, if funded in part, or in whole, by the public, should be open access. It should not be locked away behind a pay wall.

Ideally, yes, and there is a huge push at the moment in physics at least to shift towards open access. But there are downsides too, like the cost of publishing and the quality of OA journals that are springing up.

yep, i generally agree with this as an aim. however the academic publishing industry has a lot of intricacies that make it a difficult beast to deal with, indeed (i have already spoken in the past about how young academics literally have to pay these journals large sums to have their own work published). it is pretty dysfunctional and ripe for reform in many ways. just another consequence of the market infiltrating academia and its ancillary industries (e.g. academic publishing), and profit motives over-taking the original ideal spirit of intellectual research. but yes, i agree that publicly funded academic research should be public property. the problem is that several private journals, owned by private interests, hold a monopoly on 'prestige' and 'career building' publication. so they justify a high-charge for their price - both because the publishing itself is very costly, and also because the labour-hours and 'work' done has a high-value (i.e. highly-specialist, takes a lot of time and editing).

Peer review costs a fair bit too.

Last edited by Spark (2013-04-29 07:14:38)

Spark wrote:

Peer review costs a fair bit too.

indeed, lots of the 'work' involved in academic publishing is not 'covered' fully by the university contract/salary. there's a cost being run-up somewhere.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-29 07:24:18)

i'm always interested to hear what these anti-academics think the public money should more properly be spent on. what would you redirect the (paltry) sums towards, if you could dissolve or re-shuffle academia? and why would you wish to downsize academia, and not, say, the war effort? or foreign aid honoring 50-year old and redundant good-will agreements? or political vanity projects? is it because the war doesn't make you feel intellectually inferior? is it because political vanity projects don't come with long words you don't understand?

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-29 08:08:08)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

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.

Oh my God, you are serious. I thought you were joking. I thought you were actually firmly on the side of science/education, but now...

Dilbert_X wrote:

They run the rest of the country, I don't see that academia should be exempt.

Because they're doing that great of a job with the rest of the country. Why should our careers be exempt? The government should have a hand in pushing young college students towards the roles the country needs, not the ones the students want.

Sorry, young Jimmy, but America needs business majors, not astronomers. Onward for a better tomorrow, under the wings of the eagle today!

Please stop posting in DST.

that one percent science budget has really been detrimental to the american economy.

Cybargs wrote:

that one percent science budget has really been detrimental to the american economy.

Yes, in the grand scheme of the American budget, it's peanuts, but that doesn't mean taxpayer money should be squandered giving grants out to things like:

Coburn features the nearly $3 million in taxpayer money that went to researchers at the University of California at Irvine so they can play video games such as World of Warcraft. The research is designed to help "organizations collaborate and compete more effectively in the global marketplace," the report says.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities … X7eqqt36Yk

Cybargs wrote:

they should just cut the whole science budget. those pesky scientists might something that'll make god angry like that stem cell stuff.

Science research funding is actually required by our Constitution.