maybe with some real-life incentives (the five best students each year win actual money), and kids will compete at becoming better scientists.
Science inherently has real-world incentives. If you learn something through your experiments, that is useful, that has real-world value. If there isn’t any real-world value, that’s a sign that it’s not really science but just some game of pretending to do science.
I’m not too sure about this. Aren’t there scientists who claim to have did it for the beauty, the enjoyment of such beauty, etc.?
Much like pure mathematicians who talk about the beauty of their equations motivating them.
Enjoyment of beauty is a real-world value. We pay artists to produce beautiful things because they have value to us.
But even there, when you listen to talk to the string theorists about how their work reveals beauty that only they understand, there’s the fraud question.
In any case, students almost never create scientific work that’s beautiful enough that someone would engage with it without being bribed to do so.
Science has to do with understanding and knowledge—practical applications are applied science, engineering, medicine, etc. It’s up to those fields to come up with ideas about how to find real-world use for the science.
I didn’t speak about “practical applications”. If another scientist can build on the work you produce, you are also creating real-world value. In the absence of fraud, anything people are willing to pay for has real-work value.
Another scientist being able to build on the work some other scientist produces is different from what most people would call “real-world value,” but I agree that’s important (even though I disagree that other people’s ability to build on, buy or do anything else with the work determines if something is science or if the science is worthwhile—the science-status of a paper is determined purely by its content, not by what other people are or aren’t capable of doing with it).
Even though I agree that a platonic ideal of a scientist would be able to build on any paper containing true science (perhaps given enough time for technological advancement, if that is necessary).
There are multiple things you can mean by the word science. In the content of Thiel’s talk science is the thing on which you can build progress. Science in that sentence depends on creating work that’s valuable to other people. As long as the knowledge you gain is esoteric and in your own head it’s not science. Science is actually about exoteric knowledge that other people adopt.
I did link the Larry McEnerney talk for a reason. It gives more details about the notion of value that I’m pointing toward.
To refer to Duncan’s latest post, do you seriously claim that I don’t mean that with science (I’m certainly part on anyone)?
No. I mean the customary meaning of that phrase, which, I think, would be maybe something like “anyone except a few people.”
It’s certainly possible for you (or someone else) to redefine science, but then the criticism is that what-is-customarily-meant-by-science doesn’t fulfill the criteria of what-the-speaker-redefined-the-word-science-to-mean, which might be true, but I don’t see how is it important.
A better criticism would be that science that’s not useful shouldn’t be produced (rather than that it’s not true science), but then the obvious problem is that the usefulness or uselessness of science can’t always be judged in advance, and that it might take decades (or even centuries) for scientific knowledge to become useful, and humans trying to optimize for usefulness (rather than for science-quality-and-correctness) would curtail those scientific papers that have no obvious use today.
That would lead to being stuck in a sort of local maximum.
Okay, so it’s saying untrue things for rhetorical impact.
that it might take decades (or even centuries) for scientific knowledge to become useful, and humans trying to optimize for usefulness (rather than for science-quality-and-correctness) would curtail those scientific papers that have no obvious use today.
When you send a paper to a journal, that journal does ask itself “Is this paper useful to the people who read this journal and helps advance the field or is it pointless for the readers of the journal to read it.” Given that this is how our scientific system works, following Larry McEnerney advise about writing to actually create value for the readers of the journal does help produce better papers.
Thomas Kuhn did distinguish scientific fields from fields that aren’t by the fact that scientific fields progress. If the changes of a field are due to fashion and not progress, it’s not a science but in Kuhns sense if the change it is. For progress to happen you need to solve problems that help the field progress.
In Viliam’s proposal, having students train “science” with something Kahn Academy like is having train skills that are not about producing anything on which other people or even themselves can build. I used the term real-world to contrast it with the world of school.
Okay, so it’s saying untrue things for rhetorical impact.
It’s saying something literally untrue (how the English language often works) but not for rhetorical impact, but simply because that’s what the phrase means.
When you send a paper to a journal, that journal does ask itself “Is this paper useful to the people who read this journal and helps advance the field or is it pointless for the readers of the journal to read it.”
If that was the case, the suggestion to change the process of producing science would be pointless, because science would already work that way.
In Viliam’s proposal, having students train “science” with something Kahn Academy like is having train skills that are not about producing anything on which other people or even themselves can build. I used the term real-world to contrast it with the world of school.
The understanding from textbooks (or Khan Academy) is very much needed to create something other people can build on. The reason there is no obvious pathway from the former to the latter is because science is extremely complex with many layers of abstraction.
When you send a paper to a journal, that journal does ask itself “Is this paper useful to the people who read this journal and helps advance the field or is it pointless for the readers of the journal to read it.”
If that was the case, the suggestion to change the process of producing science would be pointless, because science would already work that way.
I’m not too sure about this. Aren’t there scientists who claim to have did it for the beauty, the enjoyment of such beauty, etc.?
Much like pure mathematicians who talk about the beauty of their equations motivating them.
Enjoyment of beauty is a real-world value. We pay artists to produce beautiful things because they have value to us.
But even there, when you listen to talk to the string theorists about how their work reveals beauty that only they understand, there’s the fraud question.
In any case, students almost never create scientific work that’s beautiful enough that someone would engage with it without being bribed to do so.
Science has to do with understanding and knowledge—practical applications are applied science, engineering, medicine, etc. It’s up to those fields to come up with ideas about how to find real-world use for the science.
I didn’t speak about “practical applications”. If another scientist can build on the work you produce, you are also creating real-world value. In the absence of fraud, anything people are willing to pay for has real-work value.
Another scientist being able to build on the work some other scientist produces is different from what most people would call “real-world value,” but I agree that’s important (even though I disagree that other people’s ability to build on, buy or do anything else with the work determines if something is science or if the science is worthwhile—the science-status of a paper is determined purely by its content, not by what other people are or aren’t capable of doing with it).
Even though I agree that a platonic ideal of a scientist would be able to build on any paper containing true science (perhaps given enough time for technological advancement, if that is necessary).
There are multiple things you can mean by the word science. In the content of Thiel’s talk science is the thing on which you can build progress. Science in that sentence depends on creating work that’s valuable to other people. As long as the knowledge you gain is esoteric and in your own head it’s not science. Science is actually about exoteric knowledge that other people adopt.
I did link the Larry McEnerney talk for a reason. It gives more details about the notion of value that I’m pointing toward.
I don’t think that’s what anyone means by science, so I’m naturally suspicious towards someone using it in such a manner.
To refer to Duncan’s latest post, do you seriously claim that I don’t mean that with science (I’m certainly part on anyone)?
Or for that matter Larry McEnerney that defines knowledge in the linked talk as being something that’s actually valuable to other people?
In our times of great stagnation, there are many people who don’t think that science is about producing value. That position is part of the problem.
No. I mean the customary meaning of that phrase, which, I think, would be maybe something like “anyone except a few people.”
It’s certainly possible for you (or someone else) to redefine science, but then the criticism is that what-is-customarily-meant-by-science doesn’t fulfill the criteria of what-the-speaker-redefined-the-word-science-to-mean, which might be true, but I don’t see how is it important.
A better criticism would be that science that’s not useful shouldn’t be produced (rather than that it’s not true science), but then the obvious problem is that the usefulness or uselessness of science can’t always be judged in advance, and that it might take decades (or even centuries) for scientific knowledge to become useful, and humans trying to optimize for usefulness (rather than for science-quality-and-correctness) would curtail those scientific papers that have no obvious use today.
That would lead to being stuck in a sort of local maximum.
Okay, so it’s saying untrue things for rhetorical impact.
When you send a paper to a journal, that journal does ask itself “Is this paper useful to the people who read this journal and helps advance the field or is it pointless for the readers of the journal to read it.” Given that this is how our scientific system works, following Larry McEnerney advise about writing to actually create value for the readers of the journal does help produce better papers.
Thomas Kuhn did distinguish scientific fields from fields that aren’t by the fact that scientific fields progress. If the changes of a field are due to fashion and not progress, it’s not a science but in Kuhns sense if the change it is. For progress to happen you need to solve problems that help the field progress.
In Viliam’s proposal, having students train “science” with something Kahn Academy like is having train skills that are not about producing anything on which other people or even themselves can build. I used the term real-world to contrast it with the world of school.
It’s saying something literally untrue (how the English language often works) but not for rhetorical impact, but simply because that’s what the phrase means.
If that was the case, the suggestion to change the process of producing science would be pointless, because science would already work that way.
The understanding from textbooks (or Khan Academy) is very much needed to create something other people can build on. The reason there is no obvious pathway from the former to the latter is because science is extremely complex with many layers of abstraction.
Can you elaborate on this?
If only real-world-useful science was published in journals, it would be pointless to suggest that only real-world-useful science should be produced.