You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The status of science, under my personal feeling.
I suggest you to read the article again. The private sector is doing technology, not science. Even if the experiment could be seen as the first application of a theory, applications are not "research".
By the way, there is no such a thing as "the elite" : what you have is people which is able to achieve, and underachievers. Then you can ask the government to take money from overachievers and give them to underachievers, still, underachievers are underachievers (not "the people") , and overachievers are overachievers, not "the elite".
I think overachiever and elite could possible be used interchangeable. They both are presenting s position of power or esteem. I in no means wanted to offend you. I missed in of my point and that was this: government backed scientific research has the general population at heart as in the community as a herd benefits from the rigorous criteria. The private sector is dabbling in scientific research by generating new products with technology the thing that alarms me about this is the private sector is based on monetary value not quality of life value. Do you remember when the cures for a bunch of diseases came up in late august/early September 2015? Lots and lots of research papers flooded the scientific journals with massive information and advances in disease networks but they all traced back to one patients DNA genome and none of them were set up to sustain long term patient outcomes. The private sector jumped the gun on the data that was collected and the scientific community of course and rightfully so said hey, your data is massively skewed, isn't based on the general population as a whole, lack patient results, and isn't acceptable. I remember this happening. I have always read lots of research papers through peer reviewed sites. Like its what I do for fun in my downtime because they are fifteen to twenty minutes long, you read and learn something new and it's legitimate. I was massively alarmed by the research articles and the data that they had in such a way that I think it kinda partially lead to my severe psychotic break in the fall of 2015. I knew the world was about to change massively becaus the private sector had so much information and then tried to use that information to take over the scientific community. I am not dissing science at all. Or the private sector. Just like I know it happened, I remember it happening, then I got really really ill and lost all my creditentals, all my believability, and now I just sound like what I am... a crazy schizophrenic. But before psychosis before the schizophrenia I obtain degrees in business, pre-law, marketing, international business, nursing, psychology, and was working towards going back for a doctorate in nursing. I read a lot of peer reviewed articles for a lot of years and noticed the change in the quality of the articles and then fell down the rabbit hole of how did that happen. Like how did the peer review system fail so quickly. But it's because no one is reading those articles or worried about the structure or content, people were just out to get published. It was a massive failure on all parts. I hope that it can be fixed and that our national media follows suit to ensure the message/content they are reporting is accurate, true, and sustains over time. No one likes being the first to the scene of the crash. So all sectors are pointing the fingers at each other. In a way I don't feel anyone is truly at fault unless they were just out for profits and nothing else. Would like to believe most parties have the populations best interest at heart but know that is not the case. At least the scientific community is working towards bettering the overall situation for most of the population and not just worried about if they are generating a revenue or income. It takes money to improve quality of life. I don't understand why the system is set up to make money off of improving quality of life but seems like as a whole we could all agree that life isn't something that should have a monetary value placed to it. Money doesn't buy life, except in the capitalist world because it buys medicine, surgeries, and healthcare. Without money for health care your quality of life significantly decreases and you lifespan declines rapidly. Money doesn't buy happiness but it can buy you life in our system. Seems people got the messages mixed up. Again I never wanted to offend anyone or upset you. Just generally want to talk this out with you. And get your viewpoint/find common ground so we can work towards creating solutions for the problems. We can point out the flaws in the system all day or we can work towards trying to fix those flaws. I would rather spend my time working towards fixes and recovery and a better tomorrow than arguing on differences of opinion. I found you very intelligent, very driven, very enthusiastic about the article you posted so I thought maybe you were intelligent to the point of where you could come up with ways or ideas that might better the situation. We know there's a problem... I am looking at you for a hypothesis on how to fix said problem. And willing to help you achieve that hypothesis. :)
Well, to answer such a huge post is hard. On my perspective, I don't think the "private sector" wants to take over the academic research. On the other side, differently from academics, we are somehow accountable. In your case, if some big pharma releases some drug which kills people, they will get sued and pay sound money. If we release some IoT which kills people, we get sued: even a stupid dishwasher must be over-tested to avoid problems. If it starts to flood apartments, it is an issue: http://www.reuters.com/article/bosch-siemens-recall-idUSL6N0H117K20130905
You ask me for a solution... well, as De Gaulle said, to get rid of idiots is quite a huge political achievement. And I am not De Gaulle. :) :)
Actually I think the issue is that there is no accountability. Means that, if you deliver the usual Monday paper saying you can cure cancer because of this new protein you discover, and is not true, then people should be able to sue you. If you say that AI will become self-conscious and kill the humankind, you should be accountable and pay because you are spreading panic among customers, which will not buy our products.
The same like the paper you are talking about: you release a paper saying this and that. Many PAID people in the private sector goes to read it, which is a cost for the company. In such a case, this university should have paid for the waste of time.
I think the best solution for bad behavior is accountability: if you find a new protein, then you've found a new protein. Inventing this could cure the breast cancer just to end on any women magazine is not acceptable.
My solution , if asked, is: accountability. People publishing papers should be, at least in theory, accountable for bad practice , misleading titles and others. This could force universities and foundations to introduce quality standards.
In my experience in the private sector, people will implement quality standards only when is made accountable. This is valid also for universities.
Don't worry about my way to answer: first I'm Italian and I cannot use my friendly gesture :) :) , second, I'm not native english speaker...
Thank you for the great response. And you are right accountability does solve the issue. I was surprised Donald trump didn't try to sue the media for slander during his campaign, seemed like a move he would make;) that said accountability for the words we say must be held to some standard. I know I am held accountable for my words in and out of psychosis, as I suffer from the illness schizophrenia. I will say really bizarre things but I either apologize when I realize my mistake later or I stand behind it as at the time all the evidence I had suggested I was correct in my words. People don't take apologies very well after you tell them the horrible things you see in psychosis. The media has not even issued an apology or admitted wrong doing. The stand behind well my job is to report what I see and report it before my competition does. I saw an ad the other day of the same company wear the day before they praised bitcoin and the next day they were saying bitcoin would be the demise of the financial sector. It was extreme polar opposite portrayals of the same company by the same reporting agency on back to back segments. I don't understand the medias goal in why they are manipulating their viewers into such divided groups. To me it has to be more than just profits. they should be held accountable when they cause mass histeria, mass divisions, major losses, and political turmoil. I can see accountability being an issue system wide that no one wants to be the leader or the decision-maker because then they are also responsible and by responsible I mean liable criminal and monetary for the outcome of it might be projected to be unfavorable. Everyone wants clear defined answers of what will happen if they do this or that decision. In life there are no definite answers, rather every choice you make could be your best or worst like a random lottery. You can act with all the knowledge in the world to head one way but the slightest thing can in turn offset your data by such a degree you end up far away from your original projection. For every assurance there must be an error in return when you place it in terms of energy. For ever action there is an equal reaction. I feel as though we have found ourselves in the eye of the storm so to speak. I could read your words perfectly btw, you write very well in English.
Hi Kristy, the media goal was dramatically changed after the Internet. While with normal press you needed to make it interesting and accurate, in the internet the clickstream is more important. Clickstream means the number of impressions per page is important. So it doesn't matters if you write something true or not, the problem is to have more impressions on that page. The extreme of this is the clickbait web, where most of news have no facts in behind of it. So when you see "bitcoin is the solution of everything" and "bitcoin is the apocalypse", the purpose is the same: to get the interest of people, and make them click on the link.
Science is also being perverted to this: you have the "new pill to lose weight", as well as "the new therapy for psoriasis", "enlarge your penis", "hot to grow back your hairs", and more. Out of commercials, when you discover a new protein, is better if you say "this could prevent the breast cancer", because you know most of woman will read the articles after the headline.
So the agenda has dramatically changed for the media, because the way to monetize news has changed. You will see more and more of this, and now I have to say, it will hit also facts themselves. I think I will write an article on that.