羅王宗
That was awesome! That was far more interesting to me than everything I've read on the Higgs boson this year. Huge implications.Originally Posted by Syn7
Lightsaber?
Scientists create never-before-seen form of matter
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scienti...fore-seen.html
NIII
Yeah, light sabers aren't gonna happen. Not anytime soon, anyways.
While I agree that on the surface this seems more interesting, the higgs problem was/is(depending on how you look at it) a huge deal. It's all about predictions. After such a long time, it's nice to get that validation. It can be frustrating when you are pretty sure something is there, you just can't prove it. There is some crossover here, though.
As far as practical uses for this... we'll see. But putting that aside, this is a pretty big step in that particular field. For a scientist(a real one who values the work over themselves) the only thing better than being right is being shown to be wrong. Being right is great and all, but being proven wrong = more growth. And after all, that is what this is all about, no?
NIII
You can classify people into two categories, those who fear the unknown and those who bask in the unknown. I completely agree with Feynman about honors. If one is truly remarkable, the honors mean nothing. If one is not remarkable, then honors mean far more. Those who are truly extraordinary, who do extraordinary things don't need to play dress up and have a ceremony. The real honor is seeing others use and build on your work. I have a mistrust of anyone who believes in the importance of playing the whole "look at me, I'm important" game. If your goal is the honors themselves, then you aren't in it for the right reasons."I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. [...] I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose.”
"I don’t see that it makes any point that someone in the Swedish academy just decides that this work is noble enough to receive a prize — I’ve already gotten the prize. The prize is the pleasure of finding a thing out, the kick in the discovery, the observation that other people use it — those are the real things. The honors are unreal to me. I don’t believe in honors.”
"[The Big Bang] is a much more exciting story to many people than the tales which other people used to make up, when wondering about the universe we lived in on the back of a turtle or something like that. They were wonderful stories, but the truth is so much more remarkable. And, so, what’s the wonder in physics to me is that it’s revealed the truth is so remarkable.”
Feynman
This is especially true of martial arts. If you feel the need to play dress up, you are in this for the wrong reasons. I find it fascinating the lengths some people will go to find meaning. They walk right past the meaning and push head first into the trappings for some sort of distorted insecure comfort. To me this is a sickness of the mind. A massive inferiority complex. It may push you to achieve, but if it's for the wrong reasons, what's the point... Really? With true achievement, recognition is inevitable. It's just a matter of time. If recognition is the goal, what have you truly achieved?
Banned
Depends, the reality is, in today's world, being right correlates to being able to put food on the table. Capitalism has taken over science and we have no way out of that given the extreme costs of pushing the envelope at this point. Even real scientists have bills to pay.
While I agree with the ideal, things is, it was kinda easy for him to talk. Feynman, "got his." We tend to only follow the musings of those that were most accomplished, or rather, most recognized. Want to talk about publication bias? I wonder how the survey distribution would play out if we spent more time quoting the legions of the un-thanked nameless that spent their entire lives never having their work recognized and certainly never landing those few, coveted, cush jobs with nice benefits (which are seriously far less common than people with a certain political mentality like to think).
Gotta say, every day something occurs that lights a signal fire on an impending decision I'm doing daily internal debate over. Do I really want to go all the way to a PhD? Do I really want to spend the rest of my life whoring out for ever diminishing parcels of grant money, jockeying over publications while having to prove my value to the mouth breathing bean counters and scientifically illiterate that couldn't care less about basic research?
Interesting questions are great. But when the system is rigged such that the vast majority of us end up as near indentured labor to an army of sub humans who aren't intelligent enough to realize the value in science and lacking in moral foundation enough to use that stupidity to play along in rigging everything in existence to funnel money into their pockets, it sort of messes with your motivation to go in to work in the morning, ya know?
Of course, if I were to stop where I'm at, I'd probably be in one of those jobs that just got furloughed...go figure...
Banned
All I know is, this past week, not one night was I in bed earlier than 2:30 am. And nearly every morning I'm up by 6am. I do this for a "generous" stipend of about $1350/month (after taxes/deductions). Oh and the satisfaction of intellectual growth. I just wish intellectual growth could fix the window and pay for a security system in my truck that's been broken into 3 times now in the past 2 months...
NIII
That's some quote worthy shit right there. Lol.
I hear you, and I agree in principle. But why would you get a Phd if money is your goal? If you have that capacity, you could probably exploit any number of areas in order to secure monetary rewards. People who get Phd's are doing it because they love the field, pushed by parents or desire the social standing that comes with the title. Of course it's not so black and white and one can be any combination of the above, but you get my point. If you don't have a passion for thankless research, why do thankless research? If you do have a passion for it, then you do what you have to to make it work, but the goal is the research, not the money. Yes we have to eat, but if you can do cancer research, then you certainly have the capacity to be any number of things that pay well.
If you simply give in to the norm, then you don't stand a chance of having much more than the norm. You get what you deserve. If you stand on principle you may get run through, but at least you are laying a bit more foundation for a better world. Again, if your goals are simply to eat, go be a tradesman or some d-bag entrepreneur.
Feynman didn't turn down the prize. He knew what it meant for his career. He did what he had to do. Just like how everyday I smile and pretend to care what people are feeling. It makes my life easier. But on the inside, I stay true to myself. We all have to front to get what we want. The trick is to not buy into your own front. That's the difference.
NIII
Well, if you're good at what you do, it will pay off later.
It's a bit easier for me because my interests are somewhat aligned with peoples selfish demand. I don't do it for them, but it's cool that people are interested in the product of the work.
NIII
Basically, if being recognized puffs you up more than the thing you are recognized for, you need to take a long look at yourself. But there is no shame in exploiting such recognition in order to further your interests.
It's like the difference between a politician who gets to office in order to make changes they believe in and a politician whose goal is to stay in office. And of course, there is a grey area there. A point where doing what you have to do to stay in office in order to do what you want to do. But that's where most people lose themselves. And for anyone who has a career that is geared toward objective fact, this is a precarious place to be.
Last edited by Syn7; 10-05-2013 at 09:29 AM.
Banned
Money and recognition is never the goal. But recognition = money, and money = not starving. Idealism doesn't work too well when you're debating between eating dinner or paying to keep the lights on.
You basically have 2 options in biological research. If you go private sector, you work pharm if you're biomed or you go into consulting if you're natural sciences. PhD positions have little job security. If money grubbers decide your work is no longer profitable, you get the can. The lab techs (mostly MS) tend to fair better as they are paid less and are basically there for a technical skill unrelated to a specific specialty.
If you're interested in basic research, you run the gauntlet of academia.
What most people don't know is, if you're in an academic position doing research, you make very little salary from the university (unless you're one of those very few that got tenure). You eat with whatever is left over from your grant awards. That's after you've paid for equipment costs, paid staff, covered the tuition of grad students working in your lab, paid publication costs (because you actually pay them to run your work which they then profit from in subscription fees...) etc.
Grants require recognition. If you want to survive, recognition is a necessity. You simply can't get a job if you can't prove that you can bring in money. Do a cursory search on faculty CV's, one of the longest sections is nearly always a section outlining the monetary awards they have won.
My point is, its easy to bemoan those in research that strive for recognition, if one isn't in a position where their own survival is contingent upon such recognition. The system has been poisoned and we are just trying to do our best to make it a day at a time. And its high hypocritical when the institutions that stand to profit the most from our mental powerlifting, are the same ones trying to cram the philosophical high road down our throats while pocketing proceeds from our research. And don't even get me started on the crap with equipment procurement. Oh you just came up with an entirely awesome, new ground idea that could have far ranging implications? You put in the work, devised a genius experiment? You wrote the grant that allowed the acquisition of cutting edge tech? Sorry, state law says that's not actually yours, it belongs to the state via university ownership. BTW, that university decided not to extend your contract because they can pay adjunct faculty a fraction of your salary and the football coach needs a raise. Wish you luck in the next endeavor, thanks for that nifty new sequencer though...
Let me clarify, I'm bitching. I'm not going to cut short and settle for a masters consolation prize. The quest to find an elusive answer is compelling. If I cared about money, I'd have used my background in physiology to cross over into health physics and got a job pulling $70k start up with just a BS.
But shit be f'd up in here ya? Money should be an incentive. It shouldn't be the case where you have to decide between great deal of self sacrifice for idealistic goals vs. living free of debt. Its not about wanting to be rich. Its about living in fear that you'll be canned because you aren't a bringing in enough cash to warrant your continuation. And in that event, you aren't following those high ground, intellectual pursuits either way. I mean, we could go back to a time where the only scientists were those endowed with wealth, or clergy. But where would that leave us?
Banned
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1008102559.htm
Every little bit exposes more and more how un-unique humans actually are.
NIII
I would make a distinction between what I call honors(in the context of my original point) and recognition for good work. If somebody wants to give you grant money and some medal, by all means, take that. My issue is with the chip on the shoulder that can come with it. The misdirected pride. Know what I mean?
NIII
I wonder how the theists will readjust. After the denial stops working, that is.
Banned
Thing is, it doesn't stop. Those that want, will always put up that wall. Even in science we see it. In behavioral studies we aren't allowed to call animal behavior empathy, altruism, etc. Its always tagged xxxx-like. Never mind that we can tie behaviors to chemical signatures, signatures that are conserved through evolutionary pathways (oxytocin for example); but we still aren't supposed to humanize the other animals. Same general mechanism, but somehow its not of the same thing...whatever.
I don't know how it is in other countries, in the states the other alternative is hard solipsism born out in a form of presuppositionalism, particularly among the lesser educated and more fanatical (southern baptists for instance). Those are a particularly annoying group to ever have to speak to. Their brains are likened to a poorly written command loop that gets stuck in infinite iteration, only they have no ESC button...
NIII
Yeah. Bias is a part of who and what we are. There are more types of bias than I care to count. Being honest with yourself about your own bias is pretty important when trying to be objective.
That kinda ties in with the honors thing too. Many who are proud of themselves, let recognition go to their heads etc, often lose touch with that awareness.
NIII
Penny4Nasa, make it happen.
One of NASA's most important purposes, aside from incredible innovation and discovery, is its ongoing search for near-Earth objects whose size and power pose a significant threat to humanity. While shut down, however, NASA's workforce has been drastically cut, resulting in less eyes on the sky. NASA's public relations have also taken a hit, shutting down various twitter accounts, including @AsteroidWatch, an account whose primary purpose is to communicate information about near-Earth objects to followers and media outlets.
In a 60 minutes report that aired on October 6th, Amy Mainzer, an astrophysicist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) remarked that “...we know about some of the most distant galaxies in the known universe, and yet, we don't really know everything that's right in our own backyard.” By partnering with amateur and other professional astronomers across the world, NASA has been able to locate, classify and predict the course of over 10,000 objects of various sizes and orbits within the vicinity of Earth. Though this number may sound high, scientists at JPL estimate the total number of near-Earth objects–capable of at least city-wide destruction– to be near 1 million. The asteroid that smashed windows and injured hundreds in Chelyabinsk, Russia in February was completely unknown to NASA and its partners before its impact in a relatively unpopulated area. However, the outcome could have been much worse if impact had occurred over a large metropolitan city.
With NASA at full capacity and fully funded to 1% of the federal budget, our best and brightest scientists can return to their planet-saving work. Without their expertise, those of us on Earth are essentially playing a life-threatening game of cosmic roulette. Tell Congress to put NASA back to work through our website!
Take action here: http://www.penny4nasa.org/take-action/
Watch the 60 Minutes Segment, featuring Anderson Cooper and various near-Earth object experts from JPL: http://goo.gl/Uz9iL6
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote