Will take time to respond in full later, but mostly agreed and to add: people in academia care for publishing papers, and thus for converting their research into a “story” to get it published. I have hear the word “story” way more times that anything “truth/knowledge” related in academia, especially in practical labs that were producing light-emitting diodes.
In fact, my current purely money-making field is way closer to the truth and way more empirical than most of the academy: our ultimate judge is profit, and if the profit goes bad, neither beauty of the model or system nor story will acquit you.
And let’s not forget that in academia the truth is defined democratically, otherwise we won’t be having dark matter [not even a] theory as the leading “explanation” of observed breakdown of relativity at galactic+ scales/small accelerations.
In fact, my current purely money-making field is way closer to the truth and way more empirical than most of the academy: our ultimate judge is profit, and if the profit goes bad, neither beauty of the model or system nor story will acquit you.
And let’s not forget that in academia the truth is defined democratically, otherwise we won’t be having dark matter [not even a] theory as the leading “explanation” of observed breakdown of relativity at galactic+ scales/small accelerations.
👍4🥱1
Well, not necessarily. Either you already have money to afford not doing stupid things for money, or you will be waiting for money to come your way, which happens quite often.
Forwarded from Lenguist
facts. if your work isn't intrinsically aligned with money, you will always have to do stupid things to get money
https://twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1669293448980049920?s=20
https://twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1669293448980049920?s=20
Twitter
common delusion. actually honest inquiry to the truth is only possible in private firms, and there only when incentives are internally aligned such that if you get the wrong answer your company loses money
Науковці: політичні погляди не впливають на наукові теорії.
Тим часом квантова механіка: буквально лівацька, і навіть містить трансродові частинки: нейтрино, які осцилюють, змінюючи свій аромат з електронного на мюонний і назад кожні кілька тисяч км подорожі.
Витяг: «Квантова механіка» Вакарчука. За інсайд з частинками дяка @moratapinellla.
Тим часом квантова механіка: буквально лівацька, і навіть містить трансродові частинки: нейтрино, які осцилюють, змінюючи свій аромат з електронного на мюонний і назад кожні кілька тисяч км подорожі.
Витяг: «Квантова механіка» Вакарчука. За інсайд з частинками дяка @moratapinellla.
😨10👍1🤮1🤣1
Які кольори у веселковому прапорі відповідають за ЛГБQIAPK, а які за Т?
😁3🥱3
THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS
87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by “curiosity” or by a desire to “benefit humanity.” But it is easy to see that neither of these can be the principal motive of most scientists. As for “curiosity,” that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they wouldn’t give a damn about isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles. Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. The “curiosity” explanation for the scientists’ motive just doesn’t stand up.
Indeed, the question to consider when choosing one’s occupation is: if the circumstances were different, would you be the same person with the same wants? If instead of going to the Faculty of Mathematics you end up at the Department of Linguistics, would your approach still be mostly numerical? Would you still be trying to build models and employ statistical analysis, however unfavourable the environment? If going into History instead of Finance, would you still be more interested in financial crises that caused distresses rather than motivations of individuals or groups? Or would you pick up the interest that you have encountered and follow it they way you have been taught?
Citation: The Unabomber Manifesto
87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by “curiosity” or by a desire to “benefit humanity.” But it is easy to see that neither of these can be the principal motive of most scientists. As for “curiosity,” that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they wouldn’t give a damn about isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles. Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. The “curiosity” explanation for the scientists’ motive just doesn’t stand up.
Indeed, the question to consider when choosing one’s occupation is: if the circumstances were different, would you be the same person with the same wants? If instead of going to the Faculty of Mathematics you end up at the Department of Linguistics, would your approach still be mostly numerical? Would you still be trying to build models and employ statistical analysis, however unfavourable the environment? If going into History instead of Finance, would you still be more interested in financial crises that caused distresses rather than motivations of individuals or groups? Or would you pick up the interest that you have encountered and follow it they way you have been taught?
Citation: The Unabomber Manifesto
❤3🤮3
Forwarded from Катотека | #УкрТґ ✙
Прохання, якщо в вашому селі/містечку/місті є якась пам'ятка, знакове місце, історична садиба, тощо – позначте її на гуглкартах, додайте короткий опис, хоч якусь зачіпку. Ці подробиці які відомі місцевим і можливо історикам ніяк не перетинаються з широким загалом, а це потребує максимальної популяризації. Ця інформація не має померти разом з останньою бабусею в селі, і слава богу ми маємо найпросунутіший метод обміну інформацією в кишені.
Не полінуйтеся
Не полінуйтеся
🙏9👍2