monkeyelite

> you have this idea that PI's hate their work / are gaming the system.

That’s actually not what I said.

> If the PI chooses use some funds from a grant to carry out speculative research. Good. GOOD. That is what scientific inquiry is meant for.

My claim is not about good or bad. My claim is that there is a gap between how science is done and how it is presented to the public.

> This is grants 101

You seem to agree such a gap exists, you just think it’s a good thing or a matter of business.

> because it is not my expertise

So notice when I bring up correct information, I’m told I don’t have the experience/expertise to do so despite my academic union card.

Please do share opinions about software. We have no professional organization. People argue with ideas.

> You are contributing to the decline of American science, and I will not stand for it.

you seem to identify intellectualism as a group of people or an organization.

I think that’s a mockery of truth and ideas.

Yes American science as a family of organizations deserves scrutiny and critiques. Funding these organizations is not an absolute public good.

No it’s really not that nuanced. Society should ban things that are obvious traps and cause massive costs to society.

Banning gambling doesn’t mean hunting down gamblers, it means stopping them from being in the App Store listings and showings ads in TV.

If you want to find sketchy websites on your own after that - that’s your freedom.

Having 20 year old men bombarded with gambling media is not freedom.

Yes it existed before. But Do you dispute that far more people in the US are participating now?

Ease of access and advertising matter.

> Perhaps ban advertising

Yes. Ban the phone apps and had the ads. Advertising works people, that’s why they pay for it!

That makes sense. I guess seeing the full lifecycle is always how I think about software I work on. I can do a better job of communicating that’s what I’m doing and why the approach I’m using (of doing less) actually helps us to be able to make changes.

> spotting what comes next and knowing how to solve it faster

This is such a strange mindset to me. Part of staff engineer is learning you don't need to solve tomorrow's problems. You solve it with the constraints you understand and leave room for expansion if needed.

Why do we have the opposite belief organizationally? And why as a manager would you want your top workers to be speculating about things you might want rather than achieving at the tasks you gave them?

(This is a genuine question.)

> convincing others to fund it is harder.

Yes, we are in agreement. That's why promoters are so valuable.

> in the same way a PI doesn't spend their days doing lab work.

This large workforce of Phd's protecting the time of the PI also represents a massive allocation of young intelligent talent, and that's part of my concern.

> an excess of PhDs is not a collapse, it is a boon.

It's difficult to talk about demand for required credentials. A large percentage is foreigners securing visas to work in the US.

> You have absolutely no clue how much public reporting is involved in grants. Just a complete ignorant comment right here.

> Conspiracy bullshit. Take your meds.

I think researchers put a great deal of care into public reporting. And I think they use their intellect to construct a story conducive to their careers. Who doesn't?

I am aware of researchers who use a technique where they get funding for a project that is basically finished, and use the funds for more speculative research. TTheir sources of funding expect more predictability than they can realistically provide. Wouldn't you say that represents a gap in the public's visibility?

> Every PI I know does the stuff they like

I don't doubt they are passionate and driven. I'm saying something different. When you are in the thick of establishing yourself you have to care more about what system cares about (this is maybe your situation?), and modern competition makes this all encompassing. But the book they write in sabbatical tends to look different than their official title.

> they get it well funded, because they are the best in the world at what they do.

How would we falsify this statement?

> You post about tech and programming and call yourself a "software engineer".

PhD to software engineer is a common career path.

> Good. You should feel ashamed for the way you are acting.

Name calling doesn't sound intellectual to me. I choose not to reciprocate.

EDIT: to focus on my personal beliefs and not yours.

> Please. PLEASE. I am begging you. Learn about a subject before forming an opinion about it.

I actually lived it, so thanks for your understanding and consideration.

> Getting money to fund an idea is not lesser than, it is often the hardest part.

Difficulty is not value. Extremely talented people are doing arbitrary waste work!

And you’re right - promotors aren’t lesser. They are greater - more valued in academic job placement and promotion.

> There is a tremendous amount of publicly available oversight at every step,

Did you miss the prior comment? The existing oversight is ineffective. Researchers see it as a hoop to jump through.

> If you ask, scientists will leap at the chance to tell you what they did

Personal communication is not systematic public reporting.

Also professors tend to use a two job approach: stuff they like, and stuff that’s important for their career. Unless I attend a specialized conference I won’t hear about the latter, except in a form crafted for public reception. That’s the one that gets grants.

> Again. Its all public info. Its all publicly presented.

There is public info - but it’s a facade. It’s constructed with the goal of appeasing the public requirements.

> yes you are buying into (or actively promoting) anti-intellectualism.

Name calling.

It’s scary that:

1. Our top researchers are wasting their time and energy promoting projects for grants. 2. Any attempt by the public to oversee or guide these grants is thwarted by smart people. 3. If you try to learn more about where the money is going or what’s being counted as science people on HN will call it “anti-intellectual propoganda”.

I agree, we should use policy to prevent bad outcomes.

Professors have told me it doesn’t matter which administration is in - they just need to rebrand their project to meet funding requirements. Isn’t that a scary thought? We have no visibility and they are skilled enough to transform into any form.

I agree with you that it means large amounts of agreed upon science would not fit that definition of science. Don’t you agree that’s an interesting and consistent observation though?

Of course the intent is not malicious. As a student you want someone who speaks your language and someone who understands you. And similarly for professors.

The absurdity is Americans assuming people won’t express in-group preference.

Even the undergrad is like this. I was shocked to learn it wasn’t a historical study of economic theory and instead a technical course in stats and modeling.