“All fields are harmed by this desperate need to DO science. This happens because there are too many scientists. And too much money.”
And how can it be otherwise—yeah, I know, stop the money. In my old department, in a top 20 research university, a newly hired tenure track faculty member would get some startup funding, then be released into the “wild” to do what—write grants and generate “overhead” for the university and department! This additional funding source was not trivial.
Even in those days, Federal “overhead” on grants was over 50% (IIRC). The grant money rolled in and the university got a cut, the dept got a cut, and even the faculty member got a cut (kickback) when the dept provided/paid for resources that the grant would not allow.
Since everyone was dependent upon such influx of funding, an untenured faculty member lacking in grantsmanship was sure to be cut loose at 5 years and replaced with another candidate/hire more attuned to the financial needs of the institution. ;-)
Toward the end—my end—the department got a new head. Hired because he was a premier grant achiever. Literally bringing federal grants with him in the millions! He addressed the faculty. The essence of his lecture was that every faculty member must write $300-400k worth of grant *applications* each year (in order to pay their salary). These of course were not all necessarily expected to be awarded, but he had an answer for that. As I remember, he said something to the effect that such grant submission was like throwing “spitballs” at the ceiling, eventually some would stick.
Additionally, he set a limit as to how small a grant application could be written for. In short, a grant of a few thousand dollars cost the department as much to process and maintain as one for a few hundred thousand dollars, so don’t waste your and the department’s resources. Oh, and before I forget, he subtly threatened the (already tenured) faculty by telling them that they currently averaged *one* teaching assignment (course/load) per *semester* and without such grant writing (and assumed awards), their teaching load might have to be raised to typical university standards—which was four courses per semester.
The silence in the room—as they say—was deafening. ;-)
"Why is faith in science failing," ask soyentists from atop their paper towers. New study concludes that it's because soyentists are super smart. It is added to the paper tower.
Recently I had a fat woman with problem glasses (of course) and tranny flags in bio call me a "Youtube conspiracy theorist" on another social media site, for raising criticisms like this about the "human dysfunctions" of science.
"Don't you know that science works through PEER REVIEW?" xir shrieked at me.
Yes, lady, I do, and that is a major part of the problem.
The Science has rapidly mutated into a cultural and political problem on a large scale.
My only disagreement is linguistic (& definitional), Professor, and I'm sure you know what it is: the vast majority of what is called *science* (or even better, "the science") isn't Science at all.
All of the "studies" - all of that DREK - is NOT science. Science isn't "studying."
They make no measurable & testable predictions in any specified domain AT ALL - None. Zip. Psychology isn't science (sorry, big sis). Sociology, economics, all of this "society-level" or "population level" "science"... IT'S ALL GARBAGE - and it's not science.
As a lover of the language (and all languages, really), I find this simultaneous debasement of Science and English a mega-(and meta)-abomination.
To stop it all one must stop graduate school. To stop graduate school one must stop college, To stop college one must stop high school. To stop high school one must stop the 8th grade. And so-on and so-forth. Good luck with all that, sir!
I would agree that much "science" is not science — food science, packaging science, social science, computer science, ... — is not science, and much of it should not be funded at all or allowed in universities. A very serious problem, even with scientific science and mathematics, is: midwits with PhDs. They award PhDs to other midwits, and so on. The effect is similar to or worse than drug addicts in a public healthcare system.
Of course they award PhD’s to other midwits. How else do you create peers to review your drek? Yes, yes I left my engineering PhD program to get a job in 1977. Designing machines to make medical devices, then to make semiconductor devices. Only to watch America decide that making things is beneath our dignity. Financialization the American way now. And grant writing.
The thing is that the presumed science experts can say anything and the public has no way of confirming it except to listen to another expert. The promulgation of non-verifiable facts has only one goal...depopulation. It all revolves around eliminating humanity.
The paper on quantum factoring is brilliant. I did want to pick a bit of a bone with your characterization of the trillions blown on AI slop as private money though. Big tech companies are majority funded by public contracts. They always have been. It's 'their' money, that came from our taxes to buy things that we never wanted.
I just ordered Marty Rowland's paper from Wiley. Not cheap, but I'm sure it has a lot of ammunition to add to my ammo dump, which is already forty feet high. CO2 - a trace gas, four parts in ten-thousand of the atmosphere, has a lower concentration than argon and is not only THE limiting reagent in the carbon cycle that keeps plants and thus animals (like, oh, say, humans) alive, but 95% comes from natural sources. I could go on and on.... and have, I suppose....
************
What's your take on Sabine? I'm not sure whether to take her seriously or not.
This problem goes back a long, long time and was already obvious in the '60s...But it was hilarious when observations from the new Webb telescope blew up virtually every theory of cosmology and related string theories....Probably 80% of physics PhD papers had to be revised or discarded....But some simply ignored the observations and carried on....
I have recently seen memes featuring a pizza box with the words “do not eat the box“ printed on them. My guess is that there is a great deal of overlap between the population that might eat the box and the population that can’t read. You have much the same problem: Weepies are easy and accepted by the target market. Conditional probability, is not, and is not– And the individual editor is in no position to force change: functionally he can’t let himself read.
I believe, despite not following her work, that Dr. Hossenfelder’s problem is somewhat similar, and that her biggest single issue appears to be the insertion of new variables. [particles, forces] to explain, or predict, otherwise inexplicable or incompletely understood observations. Again, it’s the easy expected thing. If the market demands Weepies or new particles and that’s what it pays for. That’s what people produce.
I follow Sabine also and I was wondering if I would have to point out her latest screed on non-science science. Nope, you caught it. She does go on and on but she is very right. If you want some light entertainment, watch her oft revised defense of climate non-science. It is just too-too. Massive cognitive blind spot.
Gell-Mann Amnesia effect (just looked it up.) I suppose this is understandable for a German scientist. They are VERY committed to the climate hoax. It would require a will of steel to resist it. Sabine has merely a will of iron. And no free will at all!
My descent into dissent started when I read Michio Kaku's book "Hyperspace". It should have had a subtitle - "Mathematical masturbation spawns the 10th dimension"
I stopped counting at The 5th Dimension and Stoned Soul Picnic.
1. I don’t know where she derives her expertise, and she has made contradictory videos regarding AI so I she’s not very convincing, despite her dramatic “impatience” with the dummies unworthy of her attention.
2. She clenches her teeth most of the time when she speaks. Being a German is tense enough, the chick she unclench her jaw.
https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijes/vol13/iss1/11/. Maximal jaw clenching is an effective strategy to improve BSV (Bat swing velocity) in division II college softball players. Maybe this explains the behavior.
“All fields are harmed by this desperate need to DO science. This happens because there are too many scientists. And too much money.”
And how can it be otherwise—yeah, I know, stop the money. In my old department, in a top 20 research university, a newly hired tenure track faculty member would get some startup funding, then be released into the “wild” to do what—write grants and generate “overhead” for the university and department! This additional funding source was not trivial.
Even in those days, Federal “overhead” on grants was over 50% (IIRC). The grant money rolled in and the university got a cut, the dept got a cut, and even the faculty member got a cut (kickback) when the dept provided/paid for resources that the grant would not allow.
Since everyone was dependent upon such influx of funding, an untenured faculty member lacking in grantsmanship was sure to be cut loose at 5 years and replaced with another candidate/hire more attuned to the financial needs of the institution. ;-)
Toward the end—my end—the department got a new head. Hired because he was a premier grant achiever. Literally bringing federal grants with him in the millions! He addressed the faculty. The essence of his lecture was that every faculty member must write $300-400k worth of grant *applications* each year (in order to pay their salary). These of course were not all necessarily expected to be awarded, but he had an answer for that. As I remember, he said something to the effect that such grant submission was like throwing “spitballs” at the ceiling, eventually some would stick.
Additionally, he set a limit as to how small a grant application could be written for. In short, a grant of a few thousand dollars cost the department as much to process and maintain as one for a few hundred thousand dollars, so don’t waste your and the department’s resources. Oh, and before I forget, he subtly threatened the (already tenured) faculty by telling them that they currently averaged *one* teaching assignment (course/load) per *semester* and without such grant writing (and assumed awards), their teaching load might have to be raised to typical university standards—which was four courses per semester.
The silence in the room—as they say—was deafening. ;-)
Thanks for this. Matches my experience, back (before I was canceled) when I was “soft money”.
"Why is faith in science failing," ask soyentists from atop their paper towers. New study concludes that it's because soyentists are super smart. It is added to the paper tower.
Recently I had a fat woman with problem glasses (of course) and tranny flags in bio call me a "Youtube conspiracy theorist" on another social media site, for raising criticisms like this about the "human dysfunctions" of science.
"Don't you know that science works through PEER REVIEW?" xir shrieked at me.
Yes, lady, I do, and that is a major part of the problem.
The Science has rapidly mutated into a cultural and political problem on a large scale.
We have devolved into a world in which the child, who exclaims, "The Emperor has no clothes!", is murdered.
My only disagreement is linguistic (& definitional), Professor, and I'm sure you know what it is: the vast majority of what is called *science* (or even better, "the science") isn't Science at all.
All of the "studies" - all of that DREK - is NOT science. Science isn't "studying."
They make no measurable & testable predictions in any specified domain AT ALL - None. Zip. Psychology isn't science (sorry, big sis). Sociology, economics, all of this "society-level" or "population level" "science"... IT'S ALL GARBAGE - and it's not science.
As a lover of the language (and all languages, really), I find this simultaneous debasement of Science and English a mega-(and meta)-abomination.
To stop it all one must stop graduate school. To stop graduate school one must stop college, To stop college one must stop high school. To stop high school one must stop the 8th grade. And so-on and so-forth. Good luck with all that, sir!
I would agree that much "science" is not science — food science, packaging science, social science, computer science, ... — is not science, and much of it should not be funded at all or allowed in universities. A very serious problem, even with scientific science and mathematics, is: midwits with PhDs. They award PhDs to other midwits, and so on. The effect is similar to or worse than drug addicts in a public healthcare system.
Of course they award PhD’s to other midwits. How else do you create peers to review your drek? Yes, yes I left my engineering PhD program to get a job in 1977. Designing machines to make medical devices, then to make semiconductor devices. Only to watch America decide that making things is beneath our dignity. Financialization the American way now. And grant writing.
The thing is that the presumed science experts can say anything and the public has no way of confirming it except to listen to another expert. The promulgation of non-verifiable facts has only one goal...depopulation. It all revolves around eliminating humanity.
All "sciences" work in paradigms described in closed systems, and then applied to open systems in reality. The outcome is inevitably limited:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/freaks-of-science
William, you have seen this by me before, and you were anything but shocked. :)
Last time, I also posted the link about the latest flavor or "science":
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/you-are-probably-not-interested-in
The paper on quantum factoring is brilliant. I did want to pick a bit of a bone with your characterization of the trillions blown on AI slop as private money though. Big tech companies are majority funded by public contracts. They always have been. It's 'their' money, that came from our taxes to buy things that we never wanted.
True.
I just ordered Marty Rowland's paper from Wiley. Not cheap, but I'm sure it has a lot of ammunition to add to my ammo dump, which is already forty feet high. CO2 - a trace gas, four parts in ten-thousand of the atmosphere, has a lower concentration than argon and is not only THE limiting reagent in the carbon cycle that keeps plants and thus animals (like, oh, say, humans) alive, but 95% comes from natural sources. I could go on and on.... and have, I suppose....
************
What's your take on Sabine? I'm not sure whether to take her seriously or not.
Search for her name on this substack. You’ll quickly get the idea.
Will do. I am leaning the way I suspect you already feel.
This problem goes back a long, long time and was already obvious in the '60s...But it was hilarious when observations from the new Webb telescope blew up virtually every theory of cosmology and related string theories....Probably 80% of physics PhD papers had to be revised or discarded....But some simply ignored the observations and carried on....
I have recently seen memes featuring a pizza box with the words “do not eat the box“ printed on them. My guess is that there is a great deal of overlap between the population that might eat the box and the population that can’t read. You have much the same problem: Weepies are easy and accepted by the target market. Conditional probability, is not, and is not– And the individual editor is in no position to force change: functionally he can’t let himself read.
I believe, despite not following her work, that Dr. Hossenfelder’s problem is somewhat similar, and that her biggest single issue appears to be the insertion of new variables. [particles, forces] to explain, or predict, otherwise inexplicable or incompletely understood observations. Again, it’s the easy expected thing. If the market demands Weepies or new particles and that’s what it pays for. That’s what people produce.
I follow Sabine also and I was wondering if I would have to point out her latest screed on non-science science. Nope, you caught it. She does go on and on but she is very right. If you want some light entertainment, watch her oft revised defense of climate non-science. It is just too-too. Massive cognitive blind spot.
Gellman effect, or however it’s spelled.
Gell-Mann Amnesia effect (just looked it up.) I suppose this is understandable for a German scientist. They are VERY committed to the climate hoax. It would require a will of steel to resist it. Sabine has merely a will of iron. And no free will at all!
My descent into dissent started when I read Michio Kaku's book "Hyperspace". It should have had a subtitle - "Mathematical masturbation spawns the 10th dimension"
I stopped counting at The 5th Dimension and Stoned Soul Picnic.
I wonder how many Kaku’s up to now.
I have two criticisms of Sabine:
1. I don’t know where she derives her expertise, and she has made contradictory videos regarding AI so I she’s not very convincing, despite her dramatic “impatience” with the dummies unworthy of her attention.
2. She clenches her teeth most of the time when she speaks. Being a German is tense enough, the chick she unclench her jaw.
I’ll have to give her another try. Stopped viewing her videos (IIRC) due to her stance on Climate Change. Other than that, she was often entertaining.
Now that you mention it, I never noticed about the clenching, but yes.
https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijes/vol13/iss1/11/. Maximal jaw clenching is an effective strategy to improve BSV (Bat swing velocity) in division II college softball players. Maybe this explains the behavior.