A bit backwards
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Sander_Marechal Nov 22, 2009 3:26 AM EDT |
This whole "open source science" move is a bit backwards when you think about it. After all, open source was inspired by the open community and peer review that happened in science. At least, back when science was still open. So it looks like open source has gone full circle :-) |
| gus3 Nov 22, 2009 4:00 AM EDT |
Don't worry, all attempts to close science will still leave a crack in the armor. |
| patrokov Nov 23, 2009 10:58 AM EDT |
Science is hardly open. It's an exclusivist club. You'll never get funding without the right credentials and pedigree. And even though my tax dollars pay for a huge amount of it, I then have to pay to find out the results. |
| techiem2 Nov 23, 2009 11:49 AM EDT |
And once you are in, you have to stick to the "approved" theories and practices. Daring to step outside the boundaries and experiment or research something contrary (or question the "approved" theories and practices) gets you kicked back out of the club. Kinda goes against the definition of science as most of us learned it..... |
| jdixon Nov 23, 2009 12:26 PM EDT |
> And once you are in, you have to stick to the "approved" theories and practices. Careful, techiem2, next thing you know someone will assume they know what you're talking about and we'll have another closed thread on our hands. > Kinda goes against the definition of science as most of us learned it..... Yep. The reasons for that are left as an exercise for the reader. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 24, 2009 11:27 AM EDT |
> The reasons for that are left as an exercise for the reader. Awww, just as I was about to jump in. |
| hkwint Nov 24, 2009 1:39 PM EDT |
As long as the boat doesn't sink, there's no reason to refrain from jumping in Bob. |
| techiem2 Nov 24, 2009 1:41 PM EDT |
But is he jumping into the boat or into the lake? |
| hkwint Nov 24, 2009 6:47 PM EDT |
Wherever jdixon hid the exercises for the reader I guess. |
| jdixon Nov 24, 2009 7:11 PM EDT |
> As long as the boat doesn't sink, there's no reason to refrain from jumping in Bob. I'm fairly sure the boat would sink not too long after Bob jumped on, or if I expounded on those reasons rather than leaving them to the reader to divine. :( |
| tuxchick Nov 24, 2009 7:57 PM EDT |
Is this one of those ethics/math exercises? "The lifeboat holds 10 people safely, but 15 survivors have crammed themselves in, endangering everyone. The load must be lightened-- who gets chucked overboard?" |
| tuxchick Nov 24, 2009 7:59 PM EDT |
"Or put on the menu?" |
| montezuma Nov 24, 2009 8:55 PM EDT |
Sander,
I agree the concept of freely shared ideas and data originated in the scientific community.
Using someone else's idea freely is one of the main reasons for the success of science over the last 400 years. This idea seems mainly aimed at opening up this process in science to the wider community i.e. to non-scientists. As a scientist supported by tax dollars I fully support this. For a long time journals have been incredibly expensive and restrictive in distributing copies of papers. That kind of highly profitable arrangement for the publishing houses should end in my opinion. One of the worst culprits is Elsevier who charge the earth and act like copyright nazis. |
| Sander_Marechal Nov 25, 2009 3:53 AM EDT |
Quoting:This idea seems mainly aimed at opening up this process in science to the wider community i.e. to non-scientists. Good point. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 25, 2009 9:16 AM EDT |
Well, the only thing I'd mention is that the idea of following the money is a great idea. I couldn't agree more with that stance, and I think that anything proported to be "science" should be seen with that in mind. Money may not corrupt, but it certainly does "influence". Far, far more money is spent on basic science privately than through public funding, but the public funding is far more concentrated. Convinced two or three bureaucrats/politicians that your research can benefit them, and they can direct what amounts to a "lot" of money your way. "Climate change" instantly comes to mind, as does "non-lethal" weapons systems. > Is this one of those ethics/math exercises? I've noticed that it's easy to justify pretty much anything by creating a "lifeboat scenario" that can only lead to the conclusion one wants. > That kind of highly profitable arrangement for the publishing houses should end in my opinion. The near-zero publication cost of electronic media is making it possible for scientists without connections to get their theories and results out to a wide audience. Sure, it leads to wide awareness of tinfoil hats and crop circles, but it also means that the information is available to interested parties without having to dig through esoteric journals. Speaking of which, back in 1990 I was working in an IBM mainframe shop, and one of the IBM techs left their copy of the IBM Basic Research Journal sitting around. I am certain that I have the name wrong, it was a quarterly (I think) book detailing the kinds of basic science research that IBM scientists were working on or had completed. In this one was a particular article on magnetic field detection using electrically pinched detection fields, directly applicable to making disk-drives far, far more dense. And, well, 15 years later I read about the same process being used in commodity disk drives. |
| montezuma Nov 25, 2009 9:50 AM EDT |
Bob, You have a very peculiar view of how science funding works. In most areas of science, most funding for basic research comes from the government. In the physical sciences in the US (where I work) the major funders are: 1) National Science Foundation (budget: 8 billion dollars a year) 2) Department of Energy 3) NASA 4) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 5) Department of Defense (DARPA) The private sector support in my area of basic research is very limited indeed. There is a lot of private funding for applied research where a direct profit can be obtained. For example: The pharmaceutical industry; the oil exploration industry; the chemical industry. Many researchers work as Professors in private universities but that support (salary) is matched with teaching duties and ability to add to the prestige of the University. Funding from NSF (my main source) is not a matter of convincing a bureaucrat or two you have a good idea: First you spend weeks writing a 30 page proposal. This then goes out to review to about 10 other qualified scientists. Unless you can get 2 or three of them to say it is excellent the proposal is dead. Then the proposal goes to a panel of about 20 senior scientists who rate proposals on the basis of both the reviews and their comparitive merit relative to maybe 100 others. A ranking is then prepared and a funding manager from NSF then draws a line in the ranking based on available money. Managers have therefore only minimal input into what gets funding. Their only real influence is in borderline cases. In addition to the above, scientists are only partially influenced by funding agencies. Mostly they are motivated by trying to do excellent science. This has to be balanced by funding opportunities. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 25, 2009 11:48 AM EDT |
> In most areas of science, most funding for basic research comes from the government. Either our definitions of "basic" are different, or we have different sources. The vast majority of research is done privately, by firms interested in the outcome of that science. Intel and the physical properties of semiconductors, IBM and magnetic fields, etc. The government funded science gets a lion's share of the attention, due to the fact that it's public. And politically motivated. |
| montezuma Nov 25, 2009 6:45 PM EDT |
Basic research by my definition includes areas where fundamental conceptual discoveries are being made. An example would be the Large Hadron Collider or a Mars mission. Applied research is where there is a product in mind within a few years. Examples include new drugs, or better techniques for figuring out where an oil deposit is. It sounds like your definition of basic research is my definition of applied research. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 26, 2009 8:51 PM EDT |
> It sounds like your definition of basic research is my definition of applied research. That sounds like the rationalization for kicking the computer scientists out of the Prinston Advanced Research Center (or whatever it's called) where Einstein was employed later in his life, because computers became real so it wasn't "advanced" enough any more. Too applicable to actual life. It sounds like your definition of basic research is my definition of coercively funded. :^) |
| montezuma Nov 26, 2009 9:14 PM EDT |
"Coercive" Funding huh? The Theory of Relativity: coercive waste. Damn that Einstein was a slacker! He should have been working on practical stuff like better detergents for the bathroom. What possible use could relativity have to anyone? Prinston egghead! Quantum Mechanics: more wastrel dreaming about useless stuff. What's a computer BTW? All those expensive space missions: yet more coercive waste............................................................ |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 26, 2009 9:41 PM EDT |
> The Theory of Relativity: coercive waste. He published that in 1912, 25-some-odd years before he came to the US at all. > All those expensive space missions: yet more coercive waste. Yep. If they were actually constructive, they would be done privately. Oh, wait, they _can't_ be done privately because NASA not only has a legal monopoly on space travel in the US, and the various government space agencies ditto in their own territorial monopolies, but they're also tax subsidized to undercut any price that private launch facilities might be able to create. A business model based on coercive funding doesn't require lots of attention to determine whether it's worthy or not. The coercive funding means it doesn't have to actually be desired or needed or productive or anything at all. Maybe people would have gotten into space 20 years later without government coercively subsidizing their own wasteful, inefficient system. Maybe 30 years, maybe Dick Rutan would have been the very first. It doesn't matter, because when it is done by interested people working together voluntarily then it will be more efficient, more productive, or it won't get investors. Look at what Rutan built to see just how wasteful the govt rockets are. And BTW, I wasn't referring to Prinston as publicly funded, even if it is. I don't know. You jumped on that red herring all by yourself. I was referring to their funny rule at the Advanced Research Center (or whatever it's called) that what is done there can't have any actual application in the real world. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 26, 2009 9:46 PM EDT |
Ghostbusters. Great movie. Ray: Working at the university was great. They gave us facilities and funding, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never worked in the private sector. They expect results. |
| montezuma Nov 26, 2009 9:59 PM EDT |
Bob it's Princeton not Prinston. LOL and a simple wiki search would tell you Relativity was published in 1905 not 1912. And anyway you just dodged the whole point: Relativity is exactly the type of research which you just condemned as "coercive" waste. It doesn't matter if it was conducted in Germany or the US it was still junk science in your picture of science. Relatiivity=no results. Boy what a lark dreaming up crap like that and getting paid for it! Hey Albert get back to the bathroom! I want some god damned detergents not more theoretical crap! |
| gus3 Nov 26, 2009 11:31 PM EDT |
Einstein's relativity research was paid for? That's news to me. Who paid for it? |
| jezuch Nov 27, 2009 3:08 AM EDT |
Quoting:Einstein's relativity research was paid for? (...) Who paid for it? Einstein. ;) |
| azerthoth Nov 27, 2009 3:31 AM EDT |
Quick correction Bob, NASA does not have a monopoly of any sort, the FAA is tasked in the US for certification of worthiness for any civilian manned launches. *edit* http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/commercial_space_tr... |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 27, 2009 10:54 AM EDT |
> NASA does not have a monopoly of any sort, the FAA is tasked... Hahahaha. > Relativity is exactly the type of research which you just condemned as "coercive" waste. Nope, didn't say a word about that. You're making up red herrings and straw men by the bushel. I didn't say research was coercive, I said that coercive funding is only required when the project is not efficient. Einstein did it all by himself. Again Ghostbusters, Venkman: "Einstein did his best work while working as a patent clerk." > Princeton, 1905 That's what I get for working from memory. On the other hand, the volume on the shelf behind me says 1912, but that's reasonable for the English translation. I'll add, before someone else does, it's the Institute for Advanced Studies. At least I remembered the "advanced" part. > Relatiivity=no results. Monte, please, where did I say that? > Hey Albert get back to the bathroom! He was working as a patent clerk, not a janitor, when he looked out the window at some workers on a roof nearby and wondered, "What would that man feel if he fell off?" So to be pedantic, it would have been "Albert! Stop staring out the windows!" |
| tracyanne Nov 28, 2009 6:21 PM EDT |
Quoting:And once you are in, you have to stick to the "approved" theories and practices. Daring to step outside the boundaries and experiment or research something contrary (or question the "approved" theories and practices) gets you kicked back out of the club. ROFLMAO I love conspiracy theories. Tell me more. |
| gus3 Nov 28, 2009 6:33 PM EDT |
@tracyanne: Have you been following the news lately? |
| tracyanne Nov 28, 2009 6:35 PM EDT |
indeed I have, which particular news are we talking about here? |
| gus3 Nov 28, 2009 6:38 PM EDT |
I'll tell you in private, since strictly speaking it's off-topic here. |
| tracyanne Nov 28, 2009 6:41 PM EDT |
ok |
| Sander_Marechal Nov 28, 2009 8:02 PM EDT |
@gus3: PM me as well please. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 29, 2009 5:37 PM EDT |
Gus, I wonder if those hacked systems were Windows or not? Just to get back on our regular subject. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!