Agreed that there’s no such thing as “wasted” research. But there is no medicine to take out of the quack medicine. They’re quacks because they refuse to accept results of research on emotional grounds and just keep squawking the same things their minds are made up about.
Focusing on problems that are fairly settled now because a 70+ year old heard they were mysterious and a problem at the age of six is so inefficient as to be regressive. Yes we should continue to research… everything but we should do so on the foundation of all the research available in <current year>, not on vaguely remembered tabloid scares from decades ago.
Faraday never told the prime minister asking what use his electrical party tricks had with, “I don’t know but someday you will tax it.” But it’s fairly un-intuitive that some weirdos arguing about Newton’s gravity equations not working in very specific circumstances would lead to precision worldwide location / mapping / guidance technology (Special relativity / GPS). Or that the abstract work in what atoms are and how they work would lead to incredibly dense handheld digital storage devices (quantum mechanics / SSDs). Seeing what organs could be removed from a living dog lead to the development of insulin.
Limiting research to what will pay off in ~5-10 years is like only taking day-trips and wondering why you never discover new continents.
Sure but I’d argue an example of wasted research is someone investigating the harm of mercury caused by vaccinations. Again. After it’s long been settled. Overwhelmingly
So part of the problem is it’s easy to believe some research is ridiculous, especially if you don’t understand it or don’t have context. And especially when there are politicians or lobbyists who find it profitable to mischaracterize or cast doubt. I really think the only answer is to restore respect for science, trust in whatever committee vets the research proposals. While that can be the road to wasted research, it’s much better than the current method of manipulated public opinion
I agree that the utility of revisiting an already well-researched question is low, but I don’t think it’s entirely wasted. Replication and in particular failure to replicate existing results is when a team can learn good things, rarely a breakthrough, often just that their procedures need refinement.
Absolutely there are much higher priority work to which public funds should go.
I mean at this point I’m not 100% sure I’m not talking with a bot that just responds to my first sentence.
5G / anti-vax / etc. aren’t research movements, they’re justifications. Conspiracy “science” is not science, it’s (fairly fringe) religion attempting to use alternate language to appear more respectable.
Stuff like the Netflix / Folding Ideas documentaries on Flat Earthers are still interesting for showing the application of ideas and how critical thinking is useful and how rejecting proof because it doesn’t fit your hypothesis, instead of adjusting your hypothesis, is farcical when viewed outside the lens of belief.
Agreed that there’s no such thing as “wasted” research. But there is no medicine to take out of the quack medicine. They’re quacks because they refuse to accept results of research on emotional grounds and just keep squawking the same things their minds are made up about.
Focusing on problems that are fairly settled now because a 70+ year old heard they were mysterious and a problem at the age of six is so inefficient as to be regressive. Yes we should continue to research… everything but we should do so on the foundation of all the research available in <current year>, not on vaguely remembered tabloid scares from decades ago.
Oh my sweet summer child.
Faraday never told the prime minister asking what use his electrical party tricks had with, “I don’t know but someday you will tax it.” But it’s fairly un-intuitive that some weirdos arguing about Newton’s gravity equations not working in very specific circumstances would lead to precision worldwide location / mapping / guidance technology (Special relativity / GPS). Or that the abstract work in what atoms are and how they work would lead to incredibly dense handheld digital storage devices (quantum mechanics / SSDs). Seeing what organs could be removed from a living dog lead to the development of insulin.
Limiting research to what will pay off in ~5-10 years is like only taking day-trips and wondering why you never discover new continents.
Sure but I’d argue an example of wasted research is someone investigating the harm of mercury caused by vaccinations. Again. After it’s long been settled. Overwhelmingly
So part of the problem is it’s easy to believe some research is ridiculous, especially if you don’t understand it or don’t have context. And especially when there are politicians or lobbyists who find it profitable to mischaracterize or cast doubt. I really think the only answer is to restore respect for science, trust in whatever committee vets the research proposals. While that can be the road to wasted research, it’s much better than the current method of manipulated public opinion
“replication crisis”
I agree that the utility of revisiting an already well-researched question is low, but I don’t think it’s entirely wasted. Replication and in particular failure to replicate existing results is when a team can learn good things, rarely a breakthrough, often just that their procedures need refinement.
Absolutely there are much higher priority work to which public funds should go.
Oh come on. “Studying” 5G and anti-vax conspiracy theories is hardly in same league as the stuff Faraday was researching.
I mean at this point I’m not 100% sure I’m not talking with a bot that just responds to my first sentence.
5G / anti-vax / etc. aren’t research movements, they’re justifications. Conspiracy “science” is not science, it’s (fairly fringe) religion attempting to use alternate language to appear more respectable.
Stuff like the Netflix / Folding Ideas documentaries on Flat Earthers are still interesting for showing the application of ideas and how critical thinking is useful and how rejecting proof because it doesn’t fit your hypothesis, instead of adjusting your hypothesis, is farcical when viewed outside the lens of belief.
aka, pseudoscience, its sounds sciency enough but its based on beliefs.