/sci/ - Science & Math

/sci/ is full of people that are interested in science, some of them go so far as to take a few classes and read scientific articles.

none of them, however, are professionals.

this is an internet imageboard
what the fuck are you expecting?

>>4675878
Well, what do you want to talk about, OP?

>>4675889
I think what he meant is that some of them are just full retards with no understanding of science at all. And nonetheless they post a lot of garbage instead of keeping to lurking.

>>4675898
I would like to know scientific answers to the following unsolved problem in astrophysics: What would happen when a sun made of ice and a sun made of lava collide?

>>4675905

>>4675900
To be fair, the scientific community has gotten to a point where professionals strictly stick to a single field. As opposed to making connections between the various sciences.

They're smart. They've got the details. But they're getting paid to advance a specific field, and once the discussion steps out of those boundaries, they shut down entirely.

It's a humbling experience, and "professionals" have frail egos. They expect people to take them at their word, just because they're "Professionals".

Why would you come to a board that has no regard for authority when other people are paying you to hear what you think?

It's something I've only realized recently... when you start paying scientists to do their jobs, they become no different than engineers. Once you start using your hobbies as a source of income, ultimately, you become a slave to the ambitions of others.

If this board is in a state of disrepair, then I'm sorry to say it. But that's not just the board itself. It's the status of the scientific community.

>>4675931
It is a sad state of affairs - but that's just the reality of funded science. I reckon a whooping 60% of the work done from institute professors is compromised by writing applications for grants. Science has been overtaken by corporate mindset - which isn't a bad thing entirely, it's just the expectation of getting results ala companies doesn't fit up with the way how science usually works.

I've started my PhD a few months ago and half the time I've been writing and reviewing goddamn reports to our funding agencies. They want us to track every minute of our work, so I have to sit down every day and enter my hours into a database.

Shit's getting ridiculous.

>>4675945

be glad you live in a time when scientific study gets funding, AT ALL.

this is actually a newer development.
so the people giving you the money don't understand how science works? they want to see some return on their investment?

SO FUCKING WHAT.

they're businessmen, that's what they do, that's how they operate.

You're getting money for advancing science, strictly for advancing science. that's more than anybody could say EVER.

so things aren't perfect?
SO WHAT, GET THE FUCK OVER IT

>>4675931
> when you start paying scientists to do their jobs, they become no different than engineers
>that's not just the board itself. It's the status of the scientific community.

Do you even have an undergrad degree?
I can't believe anyone who's studied science post-highschool would be this misinformed.

>>4675953
Well yeah, I know it is complaining on a high level - am sure that the vast majority of all PhD students would be envious if they know what my working environment is like.

Still, it's goddamn annoying when you spend hours writing pseudo-reports instead of doing science.

>>4675965
the fact that they have you doing that instead of some intern is ridiculous.

bring it up as a point, i'm sure if this work is so monotonous, they'd rather pay some kid minimum wage to do it, rather than have their valuable PhD's time wasted, rather than doing paperwork

>>4675969
Not an option - it's nowhere an option. Not where I work, not at universities. Thing is - as dull the writing may be, the governmental funding (at least here in EU) is based on how well you come out of the review process and these shitty little reports etc. are a part of it.

Alas, the shitty things you put up with to get the chance to do a PhD..

>>4675976

well, the fact they're giving you money for science is impressive in itself.

bureaucrats get involved because they wan't to make sure none of the money is "wasted" (rather, they don't actually want to give money to scientific research, they're just forced to)

look at those forms as what they really are.
you fill them out, and they allow you to nab money from an institution that is largely against science of any sort.

>>4675953
Eat a dick, faggot. The business tactics of yesterday are dragging down the science of tomorrow.

The current model for success is for the free release and production of information within a highly interactive community.

Wikipedia, Google, Youtube, Facebook, and a ridiculous amount of porn. All of these services are provided for free and without restriction. Even the more complex mediums such as video games are turning to free/cheap distribution.

I'm not thankful for this "newer development" where businesses higher scientists, or scientists go in with the intent of making money. Being "wrong" becomes the difference between a paycheck and a waste time.

In the end, the Pseudo-scientists become the ones people listen to, because they're the ones that show genuine curiosity and an interest in sharing that knowledge to the public.

In that sea of Pseudo-scientists, someone's going to eventually show up and create a system of understanding that allows and involves public input. I might even argue that it's already happened with places like Wikipedia.

Will science be there to contribute? Or will it sit back and cry about how unfair it is that after years of kissing corporate ass, the people have quit giving a fuck and seek material designed for their comprehension?

"Professionals"? More like "Cocksuckers".

>>4675990

say what you want
if it wasn't for corporate funding science and technology wouldn't have increased at all.

your bitching doesn't change anything, scientists need to live, and if somebody is willing to give them the money to live for doing science, then they better fucking take it.

You can't advance anything if you're starving to death, the only reason scientists in the past were able to uncover anything is because they were ALREADY RICH, they did it as hobbies.

that's impossible, or unpractical today.

I prefer my sea of corporate science over a few sparsely spread rich scientists any day.

>>4675931

I think you're talking bollocks.

how does one a conversation?

are there any tutorials in the internet?

>>4676011
You don't need a tutorial. Just use common sense. For example don't use insults, use logically consistent arguments and address other people's arguments. And don't get mad, when you were wrong. It's not a bad thing to admit that someone else was right.

>>4676018
You seem to be confusing a conversation with a debate.

>>4675954
Actually, no. I'm not misinformed. At all.

Academia actively discourages students that explore a variety of scientific fields and interests. It's because "There's no market for something like that". The idea that "Learning is for making Money" has corrupted our Universities and created a generation of scientist who start thinking that results aren't important unless they can be quantified.

Take this for example:
http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect?currentPage=all

Do you know why shit like this happens?
It's not just because our medication is getting weaker. It's because we've assumed that the placebo effect is an individual phenomenon rather than a cultural one.

And so now we've got this situation where scientists are as dumb as engineers and have ignored something that should have been obvious.

Brains change.
People change.
Expectations change.
Societies change.
And placebos change.

They could have easily taken all of these factors into consideration. But "That's just pseudo-science".

>>4676018
this is something that people don't understand.

most conversations on the internet, not just here, start not as "i'm bringing this opinion to the table to discuss it" but as "this is right and you better believe me because you're all wrong"

that may be simply because in the privacy of our own homes we believe our opinion to be the ultimatum.
Sad state of things really.

>>4675998

This

Scientists of the past were dirt poor their entire lives or filthy rich from being lawyers or something and then spent 10 years making up shit for fun and then being burned on a cross for it.

>>4675998
>if it wasn't for corporate funding science and technology wouldn't have increased at all.
Oh, I don't disagree. But corporate funding acts in its own interest, and you've seem to have completely forgotten that. Keep suckin' dem cocks, brah.

>your bitching doesn't change anything, scientists need to live, and if somebody is willing to give them the money to live for doing science, then they better fucking take it.
Then they aren't scientists. They're just engineers, maintaining and performing the experiments that other people actually thought of.

>the only reason scientists in the past were able to uncover anything is because they were ALREADY RICH, they did it as hobbies.
Then there's your answer. The only good scientists are the ones who aren't performing science for the sake of making money.

>that's impossible, or unpractical today.
I've at least realized and addressed the problem. I've warned you about what's going to happen, and I'm telling you now, pseudo-science is going to take control very soon until science starts producing what the public is interested in, rather than what businesses are interested in.

>I prefer my sea of corporate science over a few sparsely spread rich scientists any day.
I don't. At least those scientists loved what they did. The new breed of science is just full of fucking assholes who think their intelligence is only relative to their paycheck. I hate it when engineers call themselves "scientists".

>>4676047
>>4676047

so you just ignore all the brilliant scientists today that make money from grants and corporate funding?

we've made great advances in the last few decades, that came from extremely talented, intelligent, dedicated scientists.

to undermine their achievements just because you don't like how they get paid is insulting.

and more than a little ignorant.

>>4676047
Oh. And by the way:

When people are paying you based on your success, it should hardly surprise anyone that the numbers are going to get fudged.

It's a shame that the term "scientist" in this day and age is synonymous with "Corporate Dog".

>>4676047

>WAGHHGHGH COPORATIONS
>ENGINEERS WAGHHGHGH COCKS ENGINEERS AND COCKS
>MUH PHYSICS

God, I wonder if you ever read the shit you type. You sound incredibly stupid.

>>4676047
Are you fucking ignorant? you do not go into science to make money, there are far more lucrative fields for someone with that level of intellect. I don't know about you but most of the scientists know do science for their own love of uncovering more knowledge or to help people through more knowledge. Personally I want to be a scientist because I love science.

>>4676059
If you're going to get paid for your science, then it shouldn't be because you need the money. It should be because you're interested in science.

If businesses are hiring scientists, then you're already doing something horribly, horribly wrong.

>>4676077

if you're after money you don't get into science
it actually doesn't pay that well

most scientists go into the fields they are interested in, they make their advances through grant money and corporate sponsorship.

I prefer that over nobody going into science because they don't want to starve.

if you think scientists should starve "for their science", that's fucking dumb.
We shouldn't go back to that because then NOBODY would be a scientist.

>>4676065
No its synonymous with 'person who does science' you tool. Not every scientist is working for corporations and even the ones who are would be doing something better paid if they only care about money.

>>4676068
Hey, I'm totally fine with that.

I'm just telling you what people think of scientists. And that attitude of "Everyone who insults science is stupid" is precisely why people hate you in the first place.

It's criticism. And it's not because I think crystals are magic. It's not because you're offending "mah god". It's because I genuinely think that the scientific community is making moves that will ultimately lead to its downfall.

So you can either listen to me, or you can let your ego get in the way and tell you that I don't know what I'm talking about because your professor gave you a cookie for giving all the answers right.

>>4676102
>>4676102

>I think things should be this way

>multiple different people point out why that wouldn't work

>NUH UH IM RIGHT! NOT LISTENING NOT LISTENING!

for someone that wants to be a proponent of science, you sure don't take opposing information well.

disregarding everyone else's opinion is a sign of ignorance and ego. not intelligence.
remember that.

i think this entire thread proves that /sci/ is not able to hold a civilized or good conversation. it's pretty much just "NUH UH! UR AN FUCKIN IDIOT!" over and over. as scientists we're supposed to be able to approach things objectively and without passion, to argue our ideas in the same state and use logic, evidence, and reason to support them. if this is how our scientists act, i weep for humanity.

Why the fuck should governments or corporations give blank grants for people to do whatever kind of science they want anyway? People want fucking results for their money, they don't give a shit about obscure crap that has no application to modern society. Why the fuck should people give you money to do something that will have no affect on anyone except you and the 50 other fucking virgins in your field who give a flying fuck.

Either suck it up, get you phd and bcome a lab rat for government/corporations to discover applicable things OR work in the few fields where there is some sort of money for your discoveries AKA doing math related to millennium prizes or coming up with something in chemistry/physics that you can make into a product and sell.

And no, you will not find some unknown physical law or any other major discovery.

But if you want an example of someone who used a discovery to make a SHIT LOAD of money:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_C._Koch

But oh right, he's AN ENGINEER

>>4676097
If a company is buying the answers that Scientists come up with, then Science has taken priority.

If a company is hiring scientists to come up with answers, then the company has taken priority.

The scientists from #1 are actual scientists who act out of curiosity. The scientsts from #2 are nothing but whores who act on their own selfish whims.

Sorry, but that's just how it is. Either business comes first or science comes first. In the end, that's going to determine how it all ends.

>>4676122
I agree, everyone else in this thread is such a fucking idiot.

Not you though. You're cool.

>>4676111
Are you retarded?

Did you seriously just suggest that the number of people in the argument has any validity regarding it's truth?

I'd consider finding a religion. It sounds like it's right up your alley.

>>4676125

Holy fuck, you people are fucking idiots.

Look you moron, it doesn't matter either way. If you're doing science because there's a lot of money (well first of all you picked the wrong career) then business has won either way.

If a company hires you to do work in A FIELD YOU ENJOY ANYWAY, then science has won out.

Also, have fucking fun coming up with science discoveries in your mom's basement. Because guess what? That doesn't happen anymore.

>>4676128
lol well played sir, well played.

>>4676133
i'm saying that you refuse to even consider the opinions of anyone else. no matter how many there are, that is ignorance, not intelligence.

>>4676125
>The scientsts from #2 are nothing but whores who act on their own selfish whims.

What the fuck is wrong with you? what gives you the right to discredit people doing science because they actually get paid for it? So people who work for a private company doing research are 'selfish' because people need money to live so they do something they love? Would you rather they waste their skills and talent doing some drudge job and lead to less research being done and less knowledge being uncovered?

less hurrdurr more math

>>4676134
>If a company hires you to do work in A FIELD YOU ENJOY ANYWAY, then science has won out.
If you're ever concerned about the success of your experiments and positive results are in your personal interest, how willing will you be to invest your time in a project with a low chance of success or potentially ambiguous results?

How much control do you actually have over your so-called "hobby"? It all depends on how much the company is willing to give you.

If a company has decided in advance that it has an interest in your findings, then chances are more than likely that you've not discovered anything that's genuinely new or ground breaking.

>>4676136
I've taken your opinions into consideration. I've listened to them. And I even believed in them at one point.

But frankly, it's pretty clear that whenever personal gain becomes an issue in science, then the answers stop being "found", but "designed".

Business should be buying the answers, not giving them.You're no scientist. You're just a corporate whore.

>>4676168

Hey, I never said you would have 100% control over everything. It'll still be far better than trying to do biochemistry experiments in your basement. Without the large amounts of capital from companies/universities you cannot do modern science (unless you happen to be wealthy yourself).

We no longer live in a time where someone can have major scientific discoveries by themselves.

>>4676192
well, i was with you until you called me a corporate whore

that is ad hominem, and this conversation is over.

>>4676192

What the FUCK are you talking? How can you design an answer?

This is how it works dumbass.

Company/university says, we want to invest in looking for cure to cancer. They have no fucking idea personally how it works, but xyz scientist says "hey I'll work for you guys for salary/grant, I'm an expert in this field and I HAVE A FUCKING INTEREST IN IT"

They say "lol ok bro" and this guy becomes an employee.

You think the guy who discovers the cure to cancer is going to find it in his fucking basement? Are you delusional? WTF are you even rambling about?

>>4676147
>what gives you the right to discredit people doing science because they actually get paid for it?
Because it's business, not science.

There's a reason engineers and scientists are different. One of them is interested in discovering how something works. The other is interested in making something work.

Guess which one the companies actually want to hire? I'll give you a hint: Companies care more about money than they do about knowledge.

>>4676202
>How can you design an answer?
I'm glad you asked.
http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect?currentPage=all
Turns out it's shockingly easy.

As for your comparison, you're getting paid to create a cure, not "discover" it. In the end, you're getting paid to reach a specific objective. Why does it shock you that this would skew the results?

>>4675878
You should be worrying more about what school they go to as opposed to their major.

Who gives a flying shit if you have a PhD from a subpar school?

>>4676206
>>4676206
what are you? fucking blind?

how have you not seen the ENORMOUS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BRANCHES OF PRETTY MUCH EVERY BUSINESS

whats the first word there

RESEARCH
>RESEARCH

R
E
A
S
E
A
R
C
H

learn to fucking think

>>4676196
>We no longer live in a time where someone can have major scientific discoveries by themselves.
Well, of course not. Because that would just be "pseudo-science".

>>4676232
>can't into peer review

okay, so you just don't understand the scientific process? that would explain a lot.

Then why do I even fucking bother?

IM OUT

>>4676202
in regards to designing an answer based on what's profitable i would refer you to the well known story of tetraethyl lead.

"In the late 1920s, Dr. Robert Kehoe of the University of Cincinnati was the Ethyl Corporation's chief medical consultant. In 1928, Dr. Kehoe expressed the opinion that there was no basis for concluding that leaded fuels posed any health threat.[17] He convinced the Surgeon General that the dose–response relationship of lead was "no effect" below a certain threshold.[24] As the head of Kettering Laboratories for many years, Kehoe would become a chief promoter of the safety of TEL, an influence that did not begin to wane until about the early 1960s. But by the 1970s, the general opinion of the safety of TEL would change, and by 1976 the U.S. government would begin to require the phaseout of this product."

the basics of the story at here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#History

if that source is not good enough for you, look around, there's plenty of info on it.

>>4676235

that is a fine example of confirmation bias, and nothing else.
likely he defended his research because he thought it was true.

peer review then found out that it wasn't

that just proves the scientific process works as it should.
what is it you're trying to prove?

>>4676243
you need to actually read the article to understand, here's a snippet to refute your statement:

The toxicity of concentrated TEL was recognized early on, as lead had been recognized since the 19th century as a dangerous substance which could cause lead poisoning.[22] In 1924, a public controversy arose over the "loony gas," after several workers died and others went insane in a refinery in New Jersey and a DuPont facility in Ohio.[22] However, for two years prior to this controversy, several public health experts including Alice Hamilton engaged Midgley and Kettering with letters warning of the dangers to public health of the proposed plan.[22] After the death of the workers, dozens of newspapers reported on the issue.[22][23]

please please please do not respond anymore until you've actually researched tetraethyl lead's history. to do otherwise is not particularly scientific of you.

>>4676222
It's objective based research. And if you're not producing the answers they're looking for, then they're going to hire someone else.

I hear you loud and clear. I just don't see why you think that your status as a "scientist" somehow prevents all the answers you produce from being skewed by the company's interests.

It's kinda sad, really. You seem to honestly believe that you're a real scientist. But ultimately, you're still being guided by corporate interests.

>>4676198
If being insulted is the difference between agreeing or disagreeing with someone for you, then your thoughts aren't worth much to begin with.

So where's the part where you drop the act and return to arguing with me?

>>4675931

zomg, you might be even right... experience something similar atm

>that feel

>>4676238
Don't worry, you're too retarded to understand my argument to begin with.

I'd rather not argue with you anyway if you're under the impression that peer review is a flawless process.

This is why companies love people like you so much, by the way. You're very easy to deceive and are masters of lying to yourselves.

>>4676256

This kid a moron:

>WAGHHGHGHGH ENGINEERS
>CORPORATE WHORES
>TRUE SCIENCE

Oh man, wait till you hit university. You'll be in for a shock.

I'm out too, you're retarded.

>>4676256
>It's kinda sad, really. You seem to honestly believe that you're a real scientist. But ultimately, you're still being guided by corporate interests.
Umm, truth be told there is very little "pure" research that takes place these days. If you're working at a school and not for some megacorp type deal, you're still being influenced and controlled by the government. Ask anyone who has ever tried to get a grant to fund a study--some topics are hot and sexy, others definitely aren't. Hot and sexy gets money. The rest *might* get some.

Oh, and have fun trying to keep your job bringing in small ass grants for you to investigate whatever interests you if your interests aren't hot and sexy.

>>4676262
I remain unconvinced and I will continue sharing my opinions to the public.

You can either try to stop me now. Or I can easily play off of the public's growing resentment of academia to further my own interests.

How hard do you think it will be for me to convince people that hired scientists don't care about scientists? Hell, I could even start listing off all of the scientists that were notable without working for money, and then compare them to the scientists that did.

You can either learn how to deal with me now, or you can deal with me later and on a larger scale.

Your move.

>>4676268
When did I ever say I'm a paid scientist?

I already told you, I don't work for money. But I have both the charisma and the knowledge to make up a very convincing argument that people will listen to, simply because I'm "independent".

You're going to learn very quickly that Academia and Business can be bypassed entirely. And by that point, you'll be spending your work time either disproving what I say or convincing the populace that I'm wrong.

In the end, I'll still get my theories and ideas tested by corporate drones.

That feel when someone comes on /sci/ to post an opinion.

That feel when you see a thread starting with "That feel when" and you know it's gonna be just another off-topic shit thread.

>>4676277
>the public's growing resentment of academia to further my own interests.

Funny how the only place I have even heard of this is your posts. Apart from anti-intellectualism or religious beliefs that oppose science the public has no reason to resent academia.

>>4676277
>hired scientists don't care about scientists

Assuming you mean to say 'about science' why would you be trying to convince people of something that is objectively false? Its like you think only rich people who like science should be allowed to do science.

>>4676305
Oh, man.
And you think I'M in for a shock.

You are not prepared in the least for what's about to happen, are you?

>>4676277

This guy is trolling. Just let the thread fall. Please. For the love of god.

>>4676326
'What's about to happen'? if there actually was some uprising of retards who hated scientists for whatever reason the police would have a field day on riot control. Seriously explain why the average person should hate those who discover more about the universe, improve technology and discover new medicines.

>>4676338
i am not the guy you are arguing with. i also feel ashamed that i am doing anything to keep this conversation going. however, if you watch enough right wing media, like fox news, or listen to conservative christians, you will definitely see anti academia and anti intellectualism. you will often see the argument made that colleges are liberally biased and serve only to indoctrinate young people with liberal ideologies. the sentiment is definitely out there, i don't think anything will "happen" necessarily though.

>>4676322
>why would you be trying to convince people of something that is objectively false?
I went over it briefly, but I have my motives. I'd explain them to you. But you're too convinced that everyone who dislikes the current state scientific community is an idiot.

>Its like you think only rich people who like science should be allowed to do science.
No, it's because I think we've reached a point in history where the public should be in control of science, not Academia. But that's for a different discussion.

>>4676347
It's not just the right-wing nutjobs.

But keep telling yourself that.

>>4675878

But that's wrong, I'm in Comp Sci college.

>>4676377
back this claim with dispassionate, clear evidence as a good scientist should please. if you can, i will revise my assessment. otherwise expect skepticism.

>>4676124

>cock

ISWYDT

>>4676365 I think we've reached a point in history where the public should be in control of science, not Academia.
>>4676365 where the public should be in control of science, not Academia.
>>4676365 the public should be in control of science, not Academia.
>>4676365 the public should be in control of science
>>4676365 the public

No no no no god no holy fucking dicks all my no.

>>4676395
The evidence is neither dispassionate, nor clear.

Keep three key factors in mind, though:

1) Information is becoming increasingly free.
2) Communication is easier than ever.
3) Tution costs are rising.

It may not be an issue yet. But it will be in the near future if things keep up.

>>4676277 public's growing resentment of academia

>citation needed

You're retarded.

>>4676326

Cultural Revolution? Time to join the military.