[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.11 MB, 305x239, 1371322681735.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6101014 No.6101014 [Reply] [Original]

How do we save the scientific community?

>> No.6101020

We let it fall

So that from the ashes...etc

>> No.6101036

>>6101014

Less pressure to get tons of publications. Currently, you can risk your career by working on hard problems. The publish or perish model makes it safer to work on lots of small, easy problems.

Also, give incentives for scientists to attempt to replicate studies, especially in biology and medicine.

>> No.6101042

>>6101036
>Also, give incentives for scientists to attempt to replicate studies, especially in biology and medicine.
The problem is that in some markets the replication of studies is overwhelming the creation of new ones.

>> No.6101046

>>6101036
nope, its the LHC-like projects time

>> No.6101058

>>6101014

Automated reasoning.

>> No.6101059

>>6101014

What makes you think it needs saving?

>> No.6101063

>>6101059

The problems are mostly in biology and medicine, where a lot of studies can't be replicated.

>> No.6101073

>>6101014
RQ + FZ = PZD

It's a competition, vote for the best answer by reason of shape :)

>> No.6101097

>>6101073
BKD imo

>> No.6101109

>>6101014

Kickstarter styled crowd funding with rewards being partial ownership for the profit of the intellectual property rights of the result.

We'd be Type 1 in a year or two.

>> No.6101118

>>6101109

> Implying research shouldn't be funded unless the results can be used for profit.
> Implying the average idiot is qualified enough to decide what research should be funded and what shouldn't.

>> No.6101130

>>6101118

>Implying the ability to profit off of something isn't a yardstick for how society values it
>Implying it's not the job of the research team to describe the benefits of their work

It doesn't even have to replace the publish-or-die model, but if someone sets up the initial infrastructure it will anyhow. Crowd sourced investments are the way of the future, regardless if they take that exact form or not.

>> No.6101183

>>6101130

> Implying that what society considers valuable should determine what research is funded.

>> No.6101197

>>6101183

>Implying that science isn't the result of society attempting to understand the universe
>Implying autists making the choices about where to place spending wouldn't be the worst thing to happen to actual, non-masturbatory advancement

>> No.6101199

>>6101197

> Implying the average American idiot who watches Honey Boo-Boo and thinks the Earth is 5000 years old should determine where science funding goes.

>> No.6101217

>>6101109
The issue is that you cannot determine what science will be profitable. That is why it is often the undertaking of governments to do most pure science research as the long term investment in something that appears worthless now is often useful in the long run.

To the population in general, however, only very small, short term projects would have any meaningful or obvious application. There would not longer be massive undertakings for basic research because such undertakings do not have immediately applicable results. Furthermore, people are risk adverse. A few of their backed projects failing would essentially cause the model to collapse as failure is an inherently necessary part of science.

>> No.6101228

Stop paying people a salary to do science. This will end the incentive for posers.

If you're really that smart, in this day and age you should be able to get independently wealthy fairly quickly, then you can spend your money doing whatever science you want.

>> No.6101229
File: 26 KB, 300x279, 50ca5b40e9fea.preview-300.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6101229

>>6101014
Bring back the old research university model, it worked very very well.
It will take some money, but the return is totally worth it.

>> No.6101264

>>6101228

I think I became stupider just by reading this comment.

>> No.6101260
File: 123 KB, 266x325, 1358199138196.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6101260

>>6101228

>science
>salary

>> No.6101265

>>6101228
Dude, are you nuts?It's like saying we should not pay teachers since they could use their free time to work somewhere else.

>> No.6101267

>>6101228

> Let's remove all incentive for smart people to pursue pure research.

>> No.6101273

>>6101228

I have to believe this guy has to be trolling. Nobody can be this retarded.

>> No.6101276

do you depend on science to sustain your identity?

>> No.6101278

>>6101228
You sound so American that I could hear hamburgers falling from oil-drinking republican eagle's claws as I read your commentary.

>> No.6101285

>>6101276
Shit pays my bills, so, yes.

>> No.6101296

>>6101278

He probably typed that comment while driving around Walmart in a scooter covered in confederate flags stickers and wearing a XXXXL t-shirt with a picture of Jesus holding an assault rifle.

>> No.6101358

By stop pretending that science = intelligent.

Seriously.

>> No.6101422

clueless guy here, how does the publish-or-perish system works? university actually fires professors who don't publish much?

>> No.6101443

>>6101422

It differs from place to place.

I think it's more common to just dump a bigger teaching load on them if they start slacking off in terms of research, which still fucks them up career-wise.

>> No.6101457

>>6101358

Considering that science is a noun and intelligent is an adjective, I'm pretty sure everyone here except for you realizes that the two words are not equivalent.

>> No.6101475

>>6101457
Holy autistic nitpicking batman

>> No.6101485

>>6101475

Even if you replace "intelligent" by "intelligence" it doesn't make any fucking sense.

>> No.6101503

>>6101485
You're pretty goddamn retarded if you cant tell what he means. What hes saying is debatable, but its pretty damn well clear.

>> No.6101521

>>6101457
He meant science implies intelligence (as in you need to be intelligent in order to do science), or maybe science correlates 100% with intelligence. He didn't mean that science and intelligence are words equal in meaning.

>> No.6101737

Why is the scientific community in crisis?

>> No.6101843

>>6101118
>> Implying the average idiot is qualified enough to decide what research should be funded and what shouldn't.

With goverment funding they are paying for it anyway. It's just plain wrong they don't get a say in what is done with their own money.

Besides, people who have at least an interest in, if not an understanding of, science are the ones contributing.
People who care more for team sports will bet the football pool instead.

If you honestly think the tiny cabal of myopic autists who actually choose scienceas a career make better financial decisions than the general public then you should live somewhere with a more primitive political system; you are not evolved enough to deserve a democracy.

>> No.6101851

>>6101199

>implying implications

>> No.6101971

>>6101199
You do not actually believe that do you?
Only very, very stupid people do.
Obviously you have an emotional need here but try to think clearly