- Status
Suudy
Active member
I dunno. I certainly don’t think science is dead. I do think, perhaps, that pure theoretical science has lost much of its talent to the practical sciences. I know some *#$?! brilliant guys that work on solving practical problems. My wife’s best friend’s husband 
hypno works as a metallurgical engineer for Micron, working on the next great breakthrough in memory densities. This guy is amazingly smart, and if working the theoretical sciences could be producing amazing stuff. Or a college buddy of mine who finished his PhD in electrical engineering with his dissertation on wavelets and their applications in information theory is now designing relays for power protection systems. Or a PhD we collaborate with occasionally who did his dissertation on image processing and facial recognition (the type of stuff you see in Google’s Picasa) who now architects camera and video systems.
The practical sciences have taken over and are where all the money is going. The pure theoretical stuff, such as Einstein, Planck, Maxwell, Schrodinger, etc are the center of world any more. Research money is pouring into making computer memory denser, communications networks faster, manufacturing more efficient, etc. The money isn’t interested in monumental breakthroughs. Only ones big enough to leap over your competitor.
hypno works as a metallurgical engineer for Micron, working on the next great breakthrough in memory densities. This guy is amazingly smart, and if working the theoretical sciences could be producing amazing stuff. Or a college buddy of mine who finished his PhD in electrical engineering with his dissertation on wavelets and their applications in information theory is now designing relays for power protection systems. Or a PhD we collaborate with occasionally who did his dissertation on image processing and facial recognition (the type of stuff you see in Google’s Picasa) who now architects camera and video systems.The practical sciences have taken over and are where all the money is going. The pure theoretical stuff, such as Einstein, Planck, Maxwell, Schrodinger, etc are the center of world any more. Research money is pouring into making computer memory denser, communications networks faster, manufacturing more efficient, etc. The money isn’t interested in monumental breakthroughs. Only ones big enough to leap over your competitor.
T
Toplink_pin
Guest
I don’t think science is dead either. I do know there is a difference between engineers and scientists however. Scientists tend to be more academic, whereas engineers tend to be more practical. Both are needed, science unlocks the mysteries, engineers bring things to practical use. Both disciplines complement each other greatly, but I wonder if there was more collaboration in the “old days”.
I was mentored by an old-timer GE engineer who drove me like a mule! But this old school, slide rule, WW2 era guy taught me good engineering practice. But what impressed me most was that he could admit he was wrong. If something just wasn’t working right, he’d have us go back into the theory, even consult others in different disciplines. He would also be careful of “popular consensus”, not because the observation wasn’t correct, but because many times a false notion can become “contagious”. Which at times made him unpopular, but he always found the right answer.
Engineers have accountabily, stuff has to work. Scientists do important work too, but the closer to academia the less there is any kind of accountability. Which may explain the appearance of a “dead end” in science.
I was mentored by an old-timer GE engineer who drove me like a mule! But this old school, slide rule, WW2 era guy taught me good engineering practice. But what impressed me most was that he could admit he was wrong. If something just wasn’t working right, he’d have us go back into the theory, even consult others in different disciplines. He would also be careful of “popular consensus”, not because the observation wasn’t correct, but because many times a false notion can become “contagious”. Which at times made him unpopular, but he always found the right answer.
Engineers have accountabily, stuff has to work. Scientists do important work too, but the closer to academia the less there is any kind of accountability. Which may explain the appearance of a “dead end” in science.
D
didymus
Guest
I don’t think the article was knocking science (I’m certainly not! it’s saving my life), just the assumption that everything can be explained in materialist terms, i.e. that if you pour enough billions into studying the brain you’ll find the mind or how all the complex molecules in a cell add up to life.
They simply can’t admit that “life” or “mind” have an existence of their own.
They simply can’t admit that “life” or “mind” have an existence of their own.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
From the OP:
"Max Planck’s quantum and Einstein’s special theory of relativity would together rewrite the laws of physics; Ernest Rutherford described the structure of the atom and discovered gamma radiation; William Bateson rediscovered Mendel’s laws of genetic inheritance; and neurophysiologist Charles Sherrington described the “integrative action” of the brain and nervous system. "
These guys and the other pioneers were not working for grants from the U.S. government to perpetuate their research departments.
What happened with the global warming scandal / hoax was that the alleged scientists were working to get more government grant money and the longer they could perpetuate their falsehoods, the more money they collected.
It is almost like one of those “balloons”; well, it has burst.
True science depends on people working quietly either on their own dime or at night using their day jobs to support their work or companies with R&D departments working to evolve new products and services.
I’ve seen too many government agencies refusing to do research because they were afraid of failure or doing research because the direction was the same as everyone else was doing it.
Consider the Apollo moon project. The impetus was to beat the Russians to the moon. Once we got there, the bureaucrats and naysaying politicians cancelled the last three missions … the most important missions: THE SCIENCE MISSIONS … because they could see no value to it. 400,000 people worked for ten years to put our men on the moon. All the hardware and training was done. But the bureaucrats wanted to save the cost of the fuel.
We have done analysis of the few moon rocks that were brought back and it appears that major discoveries were probably missed … such as the extent of Helium-3 available … after all that expenditure and effort … because the bureaucrats running things had NO IDEA … were clueless about science.
Some bureaucrats were upset because we used test pilots for the first missions instead of scientists. Now we know with the memoirs being published that the coolness-under-fire that test pilots are trained and selected for was exactly what was needed.
But the shortsightedness of government run science is typical.
When the government does attempt to do science they foul it up. They do it in a half-hearted way, not understanding what they are doing. And when they attempt to interfere, they make catastrophic changes: the two Space Shuttle disasters were caused by bureaucrats changing the solid rocket booster joint designs without review [to save money by eliminating joint heaters and a heat resistant sealant that used (horrors) asbestos] and changing the chemical composition of the fuel tank insulation without review [to avoid the evil freon that was one of the ingredients].
"Max Planck’s quantum and Einstein’s special theory of relativity would together rewrite the laws of physics; Ernest Rutherford described the structure of the atom and discovered gamma radiation; William Bateson rediscovered Mendel’s laws of genetic inheritance; and neurophysiologist Charles Sherrington described the “integrative action” of the brain and nervous system. "
These guys and the other pioneers were not working for grants from the U.S. government to perpetuate their research departments.
What happened with the global warming scandal / hoax was that the alleged scientists were working to get more government grant money and the longer they could perpetuate their falsehoods, the more money they collected.
It is almost like one of those “balloons”; well, it has burst.
True science depends on people working quietly either on their own dime or at night using their day jobs to support their work or companies with R&D departments working to evolve new products and services.
I’ve seen too many government agencies refusing to do research because they were afraid of failure or doing research because the direction was the same as everyone else was doing it.
Consider the Apollo moon project. The impetus was to beat the Russians to the moon. Once we got there, the bureaucrats and naysaying politicians cancelled the last three missions … the most important missions: THE SCIENCE MISSIONS … because they could see no value to it. 400,000 people worked for ten years to put our men on the moon. All the hardware and training was done. But the bureaucrats wanted to save the cost of the fuel.
We have done analysis of the few moon rocks that were brought back and it appears that major discoveries were probably missed … such as the extent of Helium-3 available … after all that expenditure and effort … because the bureaucrats running things had NO IDEA … were clueless about science.
Some bureaucrats were upset because we used test pilots for the first missions instead of scientists. Now we know with the memoirs being published that the coolness-under-fire that test pilots are trained and selected for was exactly what was needed.
But the shortsightedness of government run science is typical.
When the government does attempt to do science they foul it up. They do it in a half-hearted way, not understanding what they are doing. And when they attempt to interfere, they make catastrophic changes: the two Space Shuttle disasters were caused by bureaucrats changing the solid rocket booster joint designs without review [to save money by eliminating joint heaters and a heat resistant sealant that used (horrors) asbestos] and changing the chemical composition of the fuel tank insulation without review [to avoid the evil freon that was one of the ingredients].
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
Of course this isn’t then end, this hasn’t happened yet:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
[Got timed out]
An easier example might be something like: training a track team. Then at the competition, as soon as the first couple of team members cross the finish line, the coach steps out onto the track, stops the competition and sends the remaining team members home just before they cross the finish line.
An easier example might be something like: training a track team. Then at the competition, as soon as the first couple of team members cross the finish line, the coach steps out onto the track, stops the competition and sends the remaining team members home just before they cross the finish line.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
AGHHHHHH!
The reference quotes Paul Ehrlich
Paul Ralph Ehrlich (born 29 May 1932) is an American biologist and educator who is the Bing Professor of Population Studies in the department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University and president of Stanford’s Center for Conservation Biology.[1][2] By training he is an entomologist specializing in Lepidoptera (butterflies), but he is better known as an ecologist[1] and a demographer, specifically for his warnings about unchecked population growth and limited resources. Ehrlich became a household name[3][4] after publication of his controversial 1968 book The Population Bomb. He is also known for the famous Simon–Ehrlich wager, a bet he made with and lost to economist Julian Simon.
- from Wiki
Lots of inventions / developments have relied on one key person.
On the other hand, we have no idea who that key person might be.
So we need to foster systems to allow the maximum number of people to participate.
The government doesn’t allow that because they demand criteria as pre-requisities.
You cannot do certain things unless you have a particular college degree. And if you lack the exact credential, then you may not participate.
Whereas some people with talent and just the right correlation of skill sets might be able to make advances. And often people with the required college degree might NOT have the right skill set.
Might be best for the government not to get involved at all.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
One fellow I know was kept around by the company even though he spent a lot of time staring at the ceiling.
He would do that for weeks and then type out one line of code that eliminated a computer program that took an hour to run.
Another time, there was a problem that no one could solve. The experts tried for weeks and got nowhere. Then this strange fellow was called in as a last resort; he just didn’t have the doctoral credentials AND he was too old AND his english was poor. He frowned and then in 30 seconds came up with three different ways to come up with the solution.
This scenario played out over and over.
He could never get a job at any kind of institute or government agency or government contractor.
He would do that for weeks and then type out one line of code that eliminated a computer program that took an hour to run.
Another time, there was a problem that no one could solve. The experts tried for weeks and got nowhere. Then this strange fellow was called in as a last resort; he just didn’t have the doctoral credentials AND he was too old AND his english was poor. He frowned and then in 30 seconds came up with three different ways to come up with the solution.
This scenario played out over and over.
He could never get a job at any kind of institute or government agency or government contractor.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Another fellow has no education at all. None. Not sure if he even finished high school. Not good at math.
Throw a problem at him: he frowns, comes up with a way to solve the problem. Then before he finishes explaining, he interrupts himself and comes up with a better approach.
His son does the exact same thing.
His friends, unrelated, do the same thing.
Go figure.
Throw a problem at him: he frowns, comes up with a way to solve the problem. Then before he finishes explaining, he interrupts himself and comes up with a better approach.
His son does the exact same thing.
His friends, unrelated, do the same thing.
Go figure.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Another fellow has no education at all. None. Not sure if he even finished high school. Not good at math.
Throw a problem at him: he frowns, comes up with a way to solve the problem. Then before he finishes explaining, he interrupts himself and comes up with a better approach. And often he will interrupt his second explanation with a still-better third approach.
His son does the exact same thing. His son only went to school because he needed to get a certain license. But he had been doing the work since he was 11 !!!
His friends, unrelated, do the same thing.
Go figure.
Throw a problem at him: he frowns, comes up with a way to solve the problem. Then before he finishes explaining, he interrupts himself and comes up with a better approach. And often he will interrupt his second explanation with a still-better third approach.
His son does the exact same thing. His son only went to school because he needed to get a certain license. But he had been doing the work since he was 11 !!!
His friends, unrelated, do the same thing.
Go figure.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
Science is ultimately best at explaining the HOW, not the WHY.
That is up to religion/spirituality/philosophy to determine.
The problem is, Science took a VERY wrong turn starting in the 19th century when it attempted (somewhat succesfully) to take the place of traditional religions as a legitimate alternative IN OF ITSELF.
And when it decided that it could explain EVERYTHING.
nd when Evolution was used by anti-theists and atheists as a solution to the pesky problem of “who to worship.” May Darwin protect us and keep us.
Now “apologists” like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris get all bent out of shape when one DARES to suggest (DARE, I tell ya!!!) that they are following another “religion” like the rest of us. After all, “belief” in the absolute truth of evolutionary materialism is NOT the same as “belief” in the truth of a Higher Being, isn’t it???
IF religion is so-called “dying,” so is Science. It just does not provide the “answers” that supposedly Big Bad Religion cannot provide.
The only way Sceince can survive is if it is remarried to religion and spirituality, like it originally was.
And they are not mutually exclusive. Let’s not forget Copernicus was a Priest. galileo was a devout Christian. Roger Bacon was also a proest. So was Albert The Great.
That is up to religion/spirituality/philosophy to determine.
The problem is, Science took a VERY wrong turn starting in the 19th century when it attempted (somewhat succesfully) to take the place of traditional religions as a legitimate alternative IN OF ITSELF.
And when it decided that it could explain EVERYTHING.
nd when Evolution was used by anti-theists and atheists as a solution to the pesky problem of “who to worship.” May Darwin protect us and keep us.
Now “apologists” like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris get all bent out of shape when one DARES to suggest (DARE, I tell ya!!!) that they are following another “religion” like the rest of us. After all, “belief” in the absolute truth of evolutionary materialism is NOT the same as “belief” in the truth of a Higher Being, isn’t it???
IF religion is so-called “dying,” so is Science. It just does not provide the “answers” that supposedly Big Bad Religion cannot provide.
The only way Sceince can survive is if it is remarried to religion and spirituality, like it originally was.
And they are not mutually exclusive. Let’s not forget Copernicus was a Priest. galileo was a devout Christian. Roger Bacon was also a proest. So was Albert The Great.
R
RACJ
Guest
The problem has been that most scientists have ASSUMED that everything is reducible to material principles. Common sense has been flushed down the commode. Even a cursory introspection about the workings of a brain, the building of a spider's web or cocoon, or the flapping of hummingbird wings screams that there is more to existence than atoms and molecules. It's sad that so many intelligent people could be so gullible, including Stephen Hawkings. :) Rob
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Got a friend who does all this kinda stuff. Brilliant; gets called to consult by FBI on terrorism cases. Can’t get a job because can’t get along with PhD thesis advisor and getting screwed over by university admin. [can’t take course Q without first taking course T but we don’t offer course T anymore. that kind of thing] And has every kind of allergy.I dunno. I certainly don’t think science is dead. I do think, perhaps, that pure theoretical science has lost much of its talent to the practical sciences. I know some *#$?! brilliant guys that work on solving practical problems. My wife’s best friend’s husband
The practical sciences have taken over and are where all the money is going. The pure theoretical stuff, such as Einstein, Planck, Maxwell, Schrodinger, etc are the center of world any more. Research money is pouring into making computer memory denser, communications networks faster, manufacturing more efficient, etc. The money isn’t interested in monumental breakthroughs. Only ones big enough to leap over your competitor.
Makes money reading Tarot cards! No joke.
H
HickmanJosh
Guest
“science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”-Albert Einstein
E
edwest2
Guest
Let’s take care of the big, bad, evil government first. During World War II, things just had to get done. Period. After the war, military men said we had better do a lot of research because there were too many surprises in the last war: the first operational cruise missile used in combat, the first liquid fueled, ballistic rocket, the first operational jet fighter and jet bomber. Not to mention a manned rocket plane.
Just look at the end of a science article to identify the funding agencies. The military needs faster and better ways to kill people, so you’ll likely see one there.
Finally, where are people going to get funding to do basement workshop work? For those looking for a steady paycheck after graduation, it would be a lot easier to go to work for a defense contractor or chip design firm or any of a number of other firms involved in research and development. Those skilled in doing either research or applied science are generally not so skilled in dealing with potential investors. “Hi. I’ve got this great idea for a biofuel product but I need 11 million dollars and about 5 years to get it operational.”
Your choices are:
University development.
Privately funded start-up.
Big business firm doing electronics or biological work.
Science has not reached a dead end. The problem is unless someone needs a solution to a problem, there may not be a market for your finished idea. And if your idea involves a lot of expensive equipment and testing gear, how will you pay for it?
God bless,
Ed
Just look at the end of a science article to identify the funding agencies. The military needs faster and better ways to kill people, so you’ll likely see one there.
Finally, where are people going to get funding to do basement workshop work? For those looking for a steady paycheck after graduation, it would be a lot easier to go to work for a defense contractor or chip design firm or any of a number of other firms involved in research and development. Those skilled in doing either research or applied science are generally not so skilled in dealing with potential investors. “Hi. I’ve got this great idea for a biofuel product but I need 11 million dollars and about 5 years to get it operational.”
Your choices are:
University development.
Privately funded start-up.
Big business firm doing electronics or biological work.
Science has not reached a dead end. The problem is unless someone needs a solution to a problem, there may not be a market for your finished idea. And if your idea involves a lot of expensive equipment and testing gear, how will you pay for it?
God bless,
Ed
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Everybody knows that if you need $11 million and 5 years, there is no way in heaven or earth [or the other place] that ANYONE will give you the money. Period.
Nobody starts out after college by getting mega millions for a basement lab.
YOU CAN do that, but you do it by self-funding it. And you start very early. There was some little kid who build a nuclear lab in his mother’s garden shed, his step-mother’s basement, etc. Funded it himself.
If you’re a genius, and demonstrate you have talent, then no problem. but probably would would start when you’re seven years old.
[Actually, I did get invited to just such a meeting … and they looked at me … and I looked at my watch and said that the multi-million dollar project had already been done in a basement lab for petty cash … and I looked at my watch because it would be completed in 30 minutes.]
In other words, nobody starts an endless research project. You do a finite project. And if so, then you do it in your basement and COMPLETE it in 30 days for petty cash.
You need to have enough insight to do the job very quickly. If you can’t do the job in 30 minutes or 30 days for petty cash, then forget about it.
Nobody is going to give you mega bucks to build a 200 mpg carburetor.
Those biggie jobs are mostly bafflegab.
When I got invited to that meeting, the folks who invited me knew that I knew the requesters. Not one of them had any credentials except barbara streisand. Oh, they were spewing buzzwords, but I knew them and they knew that I knew that the only thing they knew were the buzzwords, with out the meaning. They were just trying to get a charge code to keep them in groceries for ten years. *
What I had done was build the system, in plain sight, for petty cash. Done deal.
If you have a great idea, then if you can’t build it in 30 days, then the idea isn’t so great.
Even those hot shot military projects are usually cobbled together using borrowed stuff and done so quickly that there isn’t time to cancel the project. 30 days. Done. If it’s successful, then sometimes, if you can get someone to run interference for you, you can get some minor funding. Very minor. Because budget cycles run two years. If you don’t want to wait two years, then you have to do it on the sneak. If you are wildly successful, and if you are successful at not “ticking off” the bureaucrats, then your project might move forward.*
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
As far as that WW2 stuff is concerned, the German aircraft designers build all kinds of advanced aircraft. But they built gliders first … no joke … delta winged gliders, towed aloft by other planes. If they worked, then they got funding to add power. No mega projects. If success wasn’t quick, then the project dried up on the vine.
Most of the stuff didn’t get funded.
After WW2, the swept wing stuff was turned into experimental aircraft. Became the F-86 Sabre jet and the B-47 bomber. The delta wing aircraft became the XF-92 and eventually the F-102, F-106, B-58, B-70, etc. But one step at a time, only. If it failed in the model stage or prototype stage, then cancellation was a real danger.
The flying wing designed failed so much that it didn’t see success until the B-1 stealth bomber in 1990-ish.
The United States was decades behind the state of the art.
By the way, the UFO phenomenon occurred just as the German designs were starting to be tested out. 1947. So who knows?
Most of the stuff didn’t get funded.
After WW2, the swept wing stuff was turned into experimental aircraft. Became the F-86 Sabre jet and the B-47 bomber. The delta wing aircraft became the XF-92 and eventually the F-102, F-106, B-58, B-70, etc. But one step at a time, only. If it failed in the model stage or prototype stage, then cancellation was a real danger.
The flying wing designed failed so much that it didn’t see success until the B-1 stealth bomber in 1990-ish.
The United States was decades behind the state of the art.
By the way, the UFO phenomenon occurred just as the German designs were starting to be tested out. 1947. So who knows?
E
edwest2
Guest
That is complete nonsense. The V-2 was a massive project which took years. The V-1 required a thousand modifications before success. The Me-163 rocket plane was used successfully.
The Northrop flying wing was a complete success. It failed because of politics. The B-2 bomber design was viewed by Northrop shortly before he died.
God bless,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
Only 25% of the V!'s hit their target.
- Status