How to slow down scientific progress, according to Leo Szilard
rootsofprogress.org
How to slow down scientific progress, according to Leo Szilard
1–10 of 35 posts
Re: How to slow down scientific progress, according to Leo Szilard
#2We can see that after the establishment of the National Science Foundation is that many companies have had organizations that have also accelerated scientific research. Also before the national Science Foundation most people that participated in Science already had money to begin with considering the great amount of money required to not be working in a factory. Also the companies are self sustaining.
Re: How to slow down scientific progress, according to Leo Szilard
#3[deleted]
Re: How to slow down scientific progress, according to Leo Szilard
#4Its an interesting notion. If you can control the sum of all scientific sponsorships surely you will be able to control the subjects of research. And yes in 1940 30 million would surely go a long way to do this but it is 2023 and there are thousands of bodies offering research grants, usually chaired by senior members of academia that mostly tend to contribute indirectly any way.
I think the slowdown in physics we are witnessing today has not much to do with this effect and more to do with pragmatic aspects like capitalism and the next order of magnitude in complexity that we need to master to make headway.
EDIT: clarity
Re: How to slow down scientific progress, according to Leo Szilard
#5> Science would become something like a parlor game. Some things would be considered interesting, others not. There would be fashions. Those who followed the fashion would get grants. Those who wouldn’t would not, and pretty soon they would learn to follow the fashion, too.
Have fashions taken over? What was science like before fashions took over?
Re: How to slow down scientific progress, according to Leo Szilard
#6Lots of conflicting views held by the scientific community:
* Science is progressing too fast * Science is progressing too slow with not enough breakthroughs * The barrier to publish is too high and is wrought with politics * There's too many papers published and we need a higher bar as not everyone is a genius * My research is important and deserves funding * Others research is trivial and they don't deserve funding * Committees suck, they do nothing, just gate-keep who gets money and there's politics involved * X research is trivial, shouldn't receive funding, someone has to stop this * The public should understand what we're doing research on * A lot of the research being published is being exaggerated in quality, difficulty and correctness
I guess it's no different than the conflicting views of any community. If there's no conflict, things get stale.
Re: How to slow down scientific progress, according to Leo Szilard
#7For those that accept the author's premise and thought experiment. What's the recommended alternative?
Let's take a humanist approach and say the biggest problems humanity need to solve right now that we aren't doing enough on are life extension and energy generation/storage/distribution. Even 5 years ago, "AI" might've been on the list, but that seems to be booming with progress, and between CRISPR/mRNA we also seem to be making incredible progress on disease cure/prevention. Meanwhile, with longer lifespans, and cheap available energy who knows what other advances we might unlock.
OK, how do you proceed with maximizing scientific progress?
Re: How to slow down scientific progress, according to Leo Szilard
#8> Science would become something like a parlor game. Some things would be considered interesting, others not. There would be fashions. Those who followed the fashion would get grants. Those who wouldn’t would not, and pretty soon they would learn to follow the fashion, too. Have fashions taken over? What was science like before fashions took over?
It was what Szilard, von Neumann, Feynman, and others were doing.
Re: How to slow down scientific progress, according to Leo Szilard
#9Sounds a lot like the effect of venture capital in the present day.
> First of all, the best scientists would be removed from their laboratories and kept busy on committees passing on applications for funds
Convince talented technical innovators that the best way they can apply themselves is to become a 'business person'"; then, talk to VCs and feel important by spending a lot of money instead of building something
> Secondly, the scientific workers in need of funds would concentrate on problems which were considered promising and were pretty certain to lead to publishable results
Do whatever VCs think is hot
> For a few years there might be a great increase in scientific output
The last 15 years?
> There would be fashions. Those who followed the fashion would get grants. Those who wouldn’t would not, and pretty soon they would learn to follow the fashion, too.
Yep.
Re: How to slow down scientific progress, according to Leo Szilard
#10Lots of conflicting views held by the scientific community: * Science is progressing too fast * Science is progressing too slow with not enough breakthroughs * The barrier to publish is too high and is wrought with politics * There's too many papers published and we need a higher bar as not everyone is a genius * My research is important and deserves funding * Others research is trivial and they don't deserve funding…
there are many researches on going, so all of these opinions can be valid at the same time