Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to slow down scientific progress, according to Leo Szilard

rootsofprogress.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–35 of 35 posts

Re: How to slow down scientific progress, according to Leo Szilard

#31

Post by throwawaymaths »

lnwlebjel wrote: post #13

As one who actively participates in this parlor game, I disagree with the premise. Prior to writing proposals, I would have thought writing proposals was a huge waste of time and effort. However, we have a saying that no good idea goes to waste. When writing, you have to be clear and concise and your idea has to be good to get funding. If you don't get funded, you usually get good, useful feedback. You get better, yo…

As someone who quit the parlor game for the reasons that Szilard wrote (though this is the first I read szilard) I think it's completely correct. {And it's not like I didn't have papers, I even worked directly under a nobel laureate}.

I happen to think it's actually more insidious. Science kind of requires the personality type that is mentally or emotionally or socially defective in that they will dogmatically stand by the pursuit of truth. By channeling people into playing the parlor game, you either "turn" dogmatic truthseekers or burn them out and kick them into something else where you might have to sell your soul but at least it pays, like writing code that serves ads. The people left at the top are less good at being scientists, and then they're on the review committees, etc.

Szilard is not cynical enough, though. There comes a point where for political reasons you dump too much money into a field where there really isn't enough expertise to effectively spend that money (California institute of regenerative medicine comes to mind). That's when you really get in trouble

Re: How to slow down scientific progress, according to Leo Szilard

#32

Post by throwawaymaths »

lnwlebjel wrote: post #29
_aleph2c_ wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you write out an idea that sounds plausible and well-thought-out, it doesn't mean that reality will agree with you, it means you have become a better politician. If you have passed it through a committee, and they agree with your idea, it means you are closer to the zeitgeist, not to reality. As any one in here knows from troubleshooting complex systems, the first seemingly sensible idea is usually wrong. To under…

> it doesn't mean that reality will agree with you, it means you have become a better politician This is true, and we're reliant on the reviewers being in touch with reality, which I gather is not always the case, though in my (limited) experience it has been. Writing proposals does feel different than writing papers and I do worry about getting too divorced from reality. I endeavor to stick to nonfiction! The slowin…

I once dealt with a DOE project manager that was excited to be funding biology because he had minored in biology in college. At one of our meetings he asked, "I'm sorry can you explain what a promoter is"?

Re: How to slow down scientific progress, according to Leo Szilard

#33

Post by scotty79 »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #25
lnwlebjel wrote: post #13

As one who actively participates in this parlor game, I disagree with the premise. Prior to writing proposals, I would have thought writing proposals was a huge waste of time and effort. However, we have a saying that no good idea goes to waste. When writing, you have to be clear and concise and your idea has to be good to get funding. If you don't get funded, you usually get good, useful feedback. You get better, yo…

From my perspective[1], the problem with writing everything you're going to do upfront is that it's a terrible way to develop new ideas. Outside of academia, where you just do shit to see what happens, you can get through maybe a dozen different "idea iterations" in a month, and within a short span of time you've really got an understanding of what does and doesn't work. In academia, where everything has to be justif…

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/747-if-we-knew-what-it-was-...

Re: How to slow down scientific progress, according to Leo Szilard

#34

Post by AugustusCrunch »

I read this story in my teens and was fascinated. Those who remember it will be horrified by some of the postulated advances, especially in the field of dentistry. I don't wish to comment on the truth of various popular ideas, but the selective way in which research is funded on on matters such as global warming, fusion, and Alzheimer's is strikingly similar to those suggested in the story, and, I believe, observed by that author. It's interesting to note that this sort of thing is quickly internalized - people are not just quick to follow the money, they're quick to believe what they have to in order to get it. I think this has led to a creeping belief that while science is important, it can properly be done in an atmosphere where the truth has been received before the facts are at all clear. I hope it's obvious that this isn't true.
Post reply on HN