Hardly. I've been corrected plenty of times, and have learned plenty.
Good for you. When you say something worthy I'll learn so far nothing.
Not that many, admittedly. I know that one theoretical physicist from UCLA, a relative actually. I know a couple of doctoral students in SA, as well. All who chose their fields because of interest first. Practical consideration is an obvious thing to be aware of, though, and you align your interest as best possible with what is available and viable to further research.
You generally align your interests with that of your institution, activism, sponsor, mentor, promoters, personal interest if possible which can be whacked out anyway and irrational, availablility of data, what's currently popular, what others aren't doing when they have more resources, who you know and can rub to get money or make use of their offshore facilities for free or a small fee, etc. And "this will make a quick paper" is a big consideration.
What makes you an expert in this field? I'm genuinely interested to know.
Then we're all on the same level and appeal to their authority fails.
Not all institutions have the same criteria about what they deem worthy of being researched, either.
Duh, who disagreed?
So a Copernican or Einstein(ean?) like curiosity plays no part in what these people do? That's a big statement about a lot of scientists.
You know what I mean. Yes curiosity often does not play a significant role. Maybe for the undergrad but once he gets into the machine....
Lawrence Krauss, Lisa Randall, Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse-Tyson, Carl Sagan, Brian Greene etc. all disagree with you. Unless you're saying they're not involved in "real" scientific research either.
Where do they disagree with me? When they speak as science popularisers for the media? The BS they punt to children in shows like NOVA? Come on. In real life you have to work in a team and you do what your boss wants or what your sponsor promotes or what you can get funding for or what has the highest likelihood of getting you a good paper or PhD. Not necessarily what's most intriguing. And yes it depends on the institution. Some are well co-ordinated and run. Others just have independent people working on different projects they can do as easily as possible and waste a lot of public money. There's a lot of wasted effort and inefficiency. If some sponsor does not want to pay for that - tough luck. It's their money. The discoveries aren't going to run away and we'll find them sooner or later.
In any case, I think there's a fair amount of overlap possible. Passion and practical feasibility. People working in quantum physics all over the world, for example, don't do it because it's such an amazingly profitable field. Although it could be, what with people trying to develop a quantum computer.
Right ok maybe that's an application they're working on. Behind it are team leaders and co-ordinators. And people who manage them and so on. There are people who do the actual work and people who put their names on it too, in first place.
Thing is we don't know where the breakthroughs will come, and where the dead-ends will crop up. All I'm saying is we shouldn't be short-sighted in how these things are approached, and I'm afraid this approach by the Canadian authorities discount the reality that sometimes breakthroughs come from research being conducted for its own sake. Also, plenty of scientists' passion is driven by the urge to help society. I know a couple of those, as well.
Right. So what can be done is that an empirical research study can be done to see what yields best results. Then follow that. Science of science research not vague statements and allusions to past discoverers.
And we're just as likely and probably more likely to get "breakthroughs" in targeted research which has some societal benefits at some level, WHEN we use public funds. These are funds give to us by the public who need to have something in return. And sometimes someone has to manage these things better.
But to say this is selling out science is again patently wrong and silly. We have more people doing science now than ever before. Scientists need to take on a social responsibility like everyone else and be accountable too. Besides those scientists who don't publish, fall by the wayside pretty quickly - that process is already biased towards quick and easy publishing vs pursuing intellectual goals of the inquiring discoverer. Just the way the real world works. This system is hardly a system of pure exploration and curiosity. Adding some additional control to this is not betraying science or some such.
(funnily enough left handed too), but can't help thinking that at the moment a lot of countries will only survive if a right leaning government takes measures.
You know what its like when theyre in control.... My canadian family are not happy with Harper at all.
