/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11838985
based, thx

>>11451990
>This kind of thing is unfortunately rampant in philosophy departments, as opposed to science departments where you can't fake competence or intellect.
I think that's overstating it. The consensus, determining what's relevant research, drives status and many can't (and coulnd't leave) the box they've worked themselves in.
There may be highly acclaimed researchers in quantum optics who happened to be lucky having choosen a field that became relevant and their true efforts and expertise (in conceptualizing and doing experiments, understanding their theoretical framework, as well as how to manage colleagues and students and selling the ideas), making them popular, in truth, doesn't reflect on them as the geniuses they are seen as in the end.

I rather listen to the incoherent ideas of a Deluze scholar, who kind of makes things up (in the way the post-modernists arguably also did) but be inspired by their lines of thought, than listen to the quantum mechanics prof who happens to sell things well ("quantum mechanics is mysterious"), despite the field being on a wrong thread for decades.
I rather read a book that eventually makes me change job than reading up about the worker bee statistical work of some chemist or medical academic. --- The "philosophy is a waste of time" guys, to paraphrase Zizek (for better or worse), swim in ideology without realizing it. That extending peoples life span or progressing technology something isn't inherently good doesn't cross their mind.
I think questioning the box is valuable, even if in the end you may find the most naive views were right all along.