In defense of science, for science's sake

https://conexaopolitica.com.br/ultimas/brazilian-scientists-and-academics-write-an-open-letter-on-the-science-of-the-coronavirus-pandemic/

In my previous blog I mentioned this letter from Brazilian scientists, who were speaking out against those who profess to speak for science.  I put a similar post on Facebook as well, and someone shared my post, which resulted in the thread below.  



Tim shared a post
May 28

    Dave Bad Person added a post

    May 26

Some scientists in Brazil decided to speak out against anyone who professes to speak for science with regard to the pandemic. And how did they do this? By speaking for science!

At the end of the article each scientist who contributed to it is measured by how many citations they have, not by what contribution they've made to society. This is a perfect example of how academia has become a self-referential system where researchers chase citations and kudos from fellow researchers, rather than trying to solve real world problems. And don't you dare "dishonestly usurp science's prestige", because these children of the wealthy, these glorified hobbyists, these unqualified educators, they want to keep science for themselves, to be conducted only at universities, only by people with PhDs, to be hidden away in obscure academic journals that hardly anyone reads. They know science belongs to everyone, but they want to keep a monopoly on it, solely for their own benefit. Wankers.

Nelly
This post is bullshit Tim. Why would you put this out in the world? Are you anti-science now? Have you always been? Citations tell us that researchers are published and do peer-reviewed science.

Tim
By no means anti-science.
I like diverse opinion.
Dave is a very cynical and smart dude who has been deep inside academia, intelligentsia, and corporate science when he isn't blowing himself up in the desert.
He could probably be a speaker for Science On Tap for any number of topics. BTW, he makes a mean curry.
I posted the original article and he reposted into his timeline (you see top level here) and thought this was an interesting take.
Personally this was the first time I had seen an academic touting how many citations they had. Didn't realize that was a badge of honor of sorts which makes sense.
But I also see how it can be like a circle jerk of instagram influencers liking each other's work.
An interesting counter to my initial post.

This sub thread between Tim and Nelly went on further but veered off the topic.


Raymon
The interwebs distruption bots are strong with this one.



My response to Nelly

Dave Bad Person
I'm not anti-science, I'm anti-academia. I had a 17 year career studying and working in universities around the world as a biomedical researcher, and for the last 14 years I've worked in corporate research & development in the electronics engineering industry in San Diego, California. There is much I could say about academia, more than can be said here, but the core of it is in that post. The fact is that most of the research going on in the world doesn't happen at universities, nor is it conducted by people with PhDs (I have a PhD). University academics tend to think they have the monopoly on science and scientific research. They don't. I understand that universities are important educational institutions which produce highly trained professionals for society, but that is an entirely separate enterprise from the scientific research conducted at universities. Actually, most universities don't require their faculty to even have qualifications in teaching, which really just makes them hobbyist educators, amateurs. As for the research, there are currently about 2.5 million scholarly articles published each year in over 28,000 academic journals, most of them with a tiny readership. Most scientific journal articles are read in full by no more than 10 people. We currently produce more scientific data than we can ever use. Meanwhile, most of the progress in the last 25 years has come not from science, but from engineering. Science needs to be put to work for society, not hoarded away in the musty halls of academia, to be conducted only by those who've paid their dues to be part of the system. In the mid-20th century the investment in university research clearly resulted in a good return for society, but that's not so certain anymore.

Sean
Do you think this quantity-over-quality trend has anything to do with the move away from publicly funded basic science to corporate work that focuses on niches and profit opportunities?

Sean
My biggest concerns about this article are 1. It doesn't really suggest an opposing viewpoint, but rather undermines the credibility of science in general while 2. supporting the political views of the ruling administration of Brazil, which has a hard-right stance bordering on authoritarianism and has been seen to spread propaganda and silence opposing voices.

Dave Bad Person
Sean, firstly, you seem to embrace the false dichotomy of basic vs. applied research. You can do both. As for corporate niche research, academic research is even more niche, fringe, and offbeat. And if it's not profitable or at least useful then it adds no value to society. If that leads to quantity over quality then it's just producing more of something we can't use.

Dave Bad Person
Sean, it does not undermine the credibility of science at all. Science still works, it just doesn't have to be owned and controlled by university academics simply because they consider themselves the only people who should be conducting and speaking for science. Acadmics don't "own" science, it doesn't "belong" to them, it belongs to everyone. Questioning the authority and control of science by academics is something I'll never stop doing.
I'm not supporting the Brazilian political system with my post, not in any way.
And in the end, what did the Brazilian scientist's letter achieve? Nothing. Nothing except another tally mark on the citation count for those involved in writing it. "Publish or perish", the old adage of academia, as if reaching an annual quota of publications and getting kudos from your fellow reseachers is more important than solving real world problems. Society does not allow academics enormous freedoms just so they can engage in frivolous nonsense, while society gets nothing in return.

Sean
Dave Bad Person, I understand that basic and applied research are both important and not necessarily distinct. What I mean is that basic research with public accountability and no specific commercial application is on the decline while applied research is being done primarily by corporations with a profit motive. That doesn't necessarily lead to bad science, but it does select what kinds of science get done.
As for the article itself, it reads like an ad hominem attack on the researchers behind the current understanding of this pandemic and the recommendations being issued and not a refutation of the science with better science.

Sean
Dave Bad Person, I also disagree with the idea that science with no commercial application isn't valuable. Not much money can be made at this point from the discoveries in astrophysics over recent decades, but the understanding of our universe has huge value, especially over the arc of history. Medicines that cure chronic conditions rapidly would be less profitable than ones made to treat symptoms for long periods of time but I think we, as a species, are better served in the long term by the former.

Dave Bad Person
Basic research with public accountability. What kind of accountability are we talking about, citation counts?
Well I have a "whole" four publications in biomedical research that have been cited hundreds of times. Does anyone care? Did they make a difference in the world? No.
I also helped invent the LTE technology that billions of people around the world use everyday on their cell phones to communicate, interact, entertain themselves, and be productive. Does it make a difference in he world? Hell yes. I'm also currently working to help invent the various technologies that will make 5G work. Do you think it will it make a difference too?
But I guess astrophysics is going to be super valuable some day, because the goals and utility of astrophysics is...??? How many times a day do you use your smart phone's high speed wireless data connection to the internet, and how many times a day do you use astrophysics? Maybe you should get to work on those disease cures, you could solve important problems AND make profit.

Sean
Dave Bad Person, Public accountability meaning research that's funded by and conducted primarily for the good of the public, not a private entity. I don't quite understand the hostility coming through in your comments here. I guess your commitment to the deeply important field of consumer electronics is commendable? I don't deny that communication is an important tool for society, but really man? Science without a big payout isn't worth it?

Raymon
Dave Bad Person, you had me, until you said profit. One day, far far in the future, profit, money even won't be needed. Collective efforts, for the common good will become the norm. Maybe I'm a delusional snowflake, but name one time that star-trek ever showed the exchange of money?

Raymon
Oh, except the foriengi, but they were dicks.

Dave Bad Person
Sure. Science without a payout isn't worth it to me. I did that career for 17 years and at the end of all those years of study, hard work, and dedication I was getting paid barely more than minimum wage, had crappy benefits, and lived on the brink of poverty, same as I'd grown up. It was completely unrewarding both financially and intellectually. Meanwhile most of the PhDs I worked with were from fairly wealthy families, and thus money and employment had never been major concerns in their lives, and so they'd had the luxury of being able to chase their frivolous dreams and bizarre interests without concern for where it may lead. You both seem to have the same mental illness as most academics:  a belief that basking in the glory of science is more noble than making a meaningful contributing to society, that science should be purely for academics, and that being coddled and isolated in the university system is better than having to go out in the real world and adapt and compete in the workforce. Maybe your naive idealistic moneyless utopia will materialize one day? Be ready for the disappointment when you realize it's not coming and you based your life philosophy on a stupid science fiction TV show for nerds.

That's all for now.

- Dave Bad Person

Academic Wanker Scum

https://conexaopolitica.com.br/ultimas/brazilian-scientists-and-academics-write-an-open-letter-on-the-science-of-the-coronavirus-pandemic/

Some scientists in Brazil decided to speak out against anyone who professes to speak for science with regard to the coronavirus pandemic. And how did they do this? By speaking for science!

As you can see at the end of the article, each scientist's worth is measured by how many citations they have, not by what contribution they've made to society, which in my experience is little-to-nothing for most of them. This letter is actually a perfect example of how academia has become a self-referential system where researchers chase citations and kudos from fellow researchers, rather than trying to solve real world problems. And don't you dare "dishonestly usurp science's prestige", because these children of the wealthy, these glorified hobbyists, these unqualified educators, they want to keep science for themselves, to be conducted only at universities, only by people with PhDs, to be hidden away in obscure academic journals that hardly anyone reads.

The letter even goes further to say that "no one can speak for science". Yet here they are speaking for science because they think they own it. Science belongs to everyone, not just university assholes who want to keep the monopoly on science for their own benefit and hide it away from the public. These people have the delusional notion that they're "changing the world" with their irrelevant publications. And what did they change with this letter? Nothing. It was merely a matter of "publish or perish". They simply have to say something because that's what they do, they talk a lot and change nothing. Academic wanker scum. 

- Dave Bad Person

My love of university academics knows no bounds.

Well looky there university acadmics, I just landed my first job with a six figure salary:  as a Senior Test Engineer at a large electronics engineering company. We're going to be doing research and development on that 5G thingy that will be going into those new-fangled micro-computers you have in your pockets. 

Meanwhile I'm still waiting for the day when I might get a job in academia in Australia. Almost 30 years later and still waiting for the career that goes nowhere to go somewhere. Like waiting for a train that never comes:  standing on a drab empty railway platform, looking at the clock apprehensively while your life ebbs away. 

Imagine if I was still back there in Canberra, Australia, the city with no industries or reason for existing, other than the indecisiveness of some aristocrats who couldn't decide on Sydney or Melbourne as the capital.  I'd probably be volunteering at the John Curtin School of Medical Research, hopeful that some day someone might notice me and throw me a dollar. I'd probably still be a poor, ignorant, smelly, working-class yobbo with long hair, dirty clothes, and an Australian drawl - I'd still be the same Dave that I was 20 years ago. I might still be living with my mum and dad, except that my dad's been dead for more than a decade and my mum moved away years ago.

Do you know why California is the industrial powerhouse of America and one of the wealthiest places in the world? Because they don't futz around at their universities making bits of paper in obscure academic journals that hardly anyone reads. They apply science and they commercialize it.  I know, it must seem incredible to you.

Well don't worry if those fires didn't take you out, there's still hope that this Coronavirus might do the job. In the meantime maybe you can make a difference by writing some journal articles, because we're going to need more toilet paper.

Haaahahahahaaaa!

- Dave Bad Person

Why we need to completely abandon usage of the Latin language

I wish we'd give up on Latin. Other than its use by monks and nuns in monastic and cathedral schools during the Middle Ages, it's a language that's been dead for 1500 years.

When these religious schools eventually evolved into the first universities around the time of the Renaissance, Latin continued to be used because it was a common language of learning that allowed communication between people from different regions of Europe.  So that's why we have this dead language clinging to existence more than 1500 years after the fall of Rome.

Let's look a little deeper into how pointless it is to continue using this dead language that hardly anyone in the world is able to write, understand, or speak.

Singulars and Plurals

It used to be annoying having to remember obscure Latin singulars and plurals like antennae, vortices, criterion, matrices, addenda, cacti, and so on. As if English spelling isn't enough of a disaster already, then we had these plurals from a dead language to deal with as well.  Fortunately these have now been largely abandoned in favor of simple English plurals with an '-s' or '-es' on the end of the word.

Anatomy

Every body part of every animal is named in Latin. The 16th century scholar Andreas Vesalius is considered the father of modern anatomy and can be credited for expanding the use of Latin in naming body parts. Vesalius was actually born in Brussels and spoke Flemish, a dialect of Dutch, and his name was actually Andries van Wesel. However it was common and often necessary for scholars of his time to Latinize their names so they would be seen as recognized university academics, and could publish in scholarly journals, and cite the works of other people who had also Latinized their names.

As a former neuroscientist and someone who knows a little Latin, I know that the parts of the brain are given Latin names. Some examples of brain anatomical structures are:

• amygdala
• caudate
• putamen
• hippocampus
• cortex
• corpus striatum
• locus coeruleus

Why did early anatomists give these parts those names?  Well the simple answer is they did it because they had no idea what these structures were for or what they did, so they simply named them after their shape or appearance. That's right!  Those Latin names are actually just names for the shape or appearance of the parts they describe.  Here are those words again in English:

• almond
• tail
• husk
• sea horse
• bark
• striped body
• blue spot

Clearly the people who named these parts didn't have the faintest clue about them, so to hide their ignorance from ordinary people, they named them in Latin so they could appear intelligent and knowledgeable when talking about them. Like I said earlier, universities are derived from monastic and cathedral schools, and if you've ever spent even the smallest amount of time talking to people in a monastery, convent, or purely academic research, you'll know that they're extremely ignorant, mostly because of the isolated life they lead, which shelters them from the general population and the dynamic world of culture, industry, and commerce going on around them. If you want to appear intelligent and educated, it helps to use words that ordinary people can't understand.

Binomial Nomenclature

The term "binomial nomenclature" is another Latin term which literally means "two-name name-calling".  Binomial nomenclature is the system of naming all living things using two Latin words to uniquely identify that living thing.  It was invented by an 18th century Swedish professor with a German name called Karl von Linne.  Linne was like other scholars of his time in that he Latinized his name. Thus he's always referred to as Carolus Linnaeus. He was the first and most well known taxonomist:  a classifier and namer of biological organisms.  Most biologists don't even know that his real name was not Linnaeus.

Why not English?

Today in the early 21st century the language of learning and science is English. It's certainly not stupid old Latin.  So why are we still using this old Latin crap?  Well obviously the main reason is historical. The other reason is that university academics are actually not the forefront of all that's new and great in the world, and due to their isolation from society, and the traditionalist system in which they're embedded, they're stuck in these old ways.  Like I've said earlier, if you've ever talked to monks or nuns you'll quickly find they're very ignorant people due to their sheltered life and isolation from the outside world.  From my 17 years experience in academia, I found that the same thing can be said of university academics, and it's true that I myself was kept ignorant by the isolation of academic life.  Academics like to think they're at the forefront of change and progress, but in reality the sheltered academic lifestyle has coddled them and turned them into ignoramuses (or is it ignorami?). Their academic freedom means they aren't required to adapt and compete in response to external cultural and economic forces. So progress at universities tends to happen only at glacial speeds:  for example, they're still using Latin from the Renaissance period for fuck's sake!  Most of the research that happens in the world today doesn't happen in universities, even though most academics seem to think that universities have the monopoly on research, but that's only because most of them have never worked outside of one.

The solution?

The solution is simple.  Stop using Latin altogether.  Abandon Latin plurals. Make a new binomial system using English words.  Start naming parts of anatomy using English words.  Once we do this, the names of things will actually make sense, rather than being some jargon in a dead language that no one understands, and that people simply repeat like parrots with no idea what they really mean. Stop this idiotic monopoly of university academics naming things in Latin.  In fact, most academics don't even know any Latin, they just mouth the words, often mispronouncing them, just so they can fit in and give the appearance of being intelligent and educated, when in fact the opposite is more likely to be true.  Often they take Greek words, or words from other languages, or even the names of their research buddies that they want to impress, and they Latinize them for use in naming things, such is the ongoing insanity of this academic Latin craze. 

It's time to let Latin die for good. The sooner we can wrench education and scholarship out of the restrictive hands of university academics, the sooner we can get rid of Latin, and the sooner we can make better and more meaningful progress in the world.


- Dave Bad Person

How scientists lie about the goals and utility of their research

This is currently only a prototype post and is part of an ongoing series of blog posts exposing the mistruths that academia uses to fool the public, so they can continue to garner funding to continue their low-effort, low-productivity academic lifestyle and frivolous dream-chasing.  I will be adding more examples to it as time goes on.  Come back later for further updates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Have you ever been watching some scientific news or reading an article about some sort of scientific research, and at the end of the article the goals and purpose of the research is given? I've seen this many hundreds of times in my life. After a 17 year career in academia and 14 years working in commerical R&D, it's completely transparent to me how this works.  

Take for example this article recently sent to me by a friend.  The important part here is to read the last two sentences.

https://www.zerohedge.com/health/fungi-absorbs-radiation-has-been-growing-all-over-chernobyl-power-plant

Those last two sentences again:

If this study is successful, experts hope that the knowledge gained can be used to produce drugs that could protect astronauts from radiation on long-term missions.
It has also been suggested that the results of this study could lead to the development of fungi-based cancer treatments.

Of course in the final sentences of the article the scientists always have to dream up some grand reason for why they're doing their completely useless and obscure research, "Um ah, it might help develop drugs for astronauts to survive long space missions? Um ah, it could lead to fungal cures for cancer?". 

What a crock of shit. They embark on the research first because they work in some obscure field and have a personal fascination with it, but they also have a need to "publish or perish".  Scientists need at least two publications a year to maintain their careers. So they conduct some research, and then they dream up some possible use for it.

Are the researchers above actually doing research on fungal cancer cures or radiation in long term space missions? Nope, they never were, that was never the goal of their research. The purpose of the research is dreamed up after the research is started. You'll see this all the time in scientific articles and news pieces, the final sentences are some sort of concocted possibility of what the research might be useful for.  In reality however, most scientists have absolutely no idea what utility their research might have. Often they don't even know what the long term goal of their research is.

Currently we have about 2.5 million scholarly scientific articles published each year in over 28,000 scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Many of those journals are very obscure, you're not going to find them on the magazine stands at your local newspaper shop. They also have extremely low readership, and many of them require a paid subscription to read the articles in them.  So more than likely, the research of these scientists will be lost and forgotten in the pages of some obscure scientific journal, to be read by only a handful of people.  However the scientists that publish their research article will appear to have met their minimal level of productivity based on the "two publications per year" rule.  This will allow them to continue to get funding and be able to continue their academic lifestyle of frivolous dream chasing and non-contribution to society. 

Meanwhile, in the world of industry and commerce, there are numerous research projects being done for specific purposes, to solve specific problems, so that specific goals can be achieved. There's an obvious contrast between goal-directed research versus research done to discover things simply because there are things out there to be discovered. The contrast between practical problem solving and frivolous knowledge collecting.

That's all for now. I'll be adding more examples here as I come across them, which would be a daily thing if I was chasing citations like a scientist.  

If you want to read another one of my articles that criticizes the goals and utility of academic research, check out this link.

http://www.badperson.net/2020/02/academics-have-become-detached-from-reality.html

-Dave Bad Person, PhD wanker




More reading on this topic


Here's another one of my blog posts about why a non-professional college degree is useless.
https://www.badperson.net/2019/10/why-non-professional-college-degree-is.html

Here's my blog post about how academics have become detached from the reality of what society needs from them.
https://www.badperson.net/2020/02/academics-have-become-detached-from-reality.html

If you want to read another thread about my shitty university experiences, check this out:
https://boredofstudies.org/threads/the-australian-national-university-anu-is-a-terrible-university-and-will-ruin-your-future.387681/
https://www.badperson.net/2019/11/the-australian-national-university-anu.html

Here's my parody of the media release by the President of the Australian Academy of Science regarding the recent mega-fires in Australia.
https://www.badperson.net/2020/01/a-message-from-president-of-australian.html



References

https://www.zerohedge.com/health/fungi-absorbs-radiation-has-been-growing-all-over-chernobyl-power-plant

https://sciencenordic.com/academia-basic-research-basic-research-crisis/crisis-in-basic-research-scientists-publish-too-much/1442296

https://www.businessinsider.com/fungi-from-chernobyl-were-launched-into-space-2016-7

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2020/02/04/fungi_that_eat_radiation_are_growing_on_the_walls_of_chernobyls_ruined_nuclear_reactor.html

https://pharmacy-nutrition.usask.ca/research/spotlight-profiles/spotlight-on-dr.-ekaterina-dadachova.php

https://www.nature.com/news/2007/070521/full/news070521-5.html#B1

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2677413/

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/284273main_Radiation_HS_Mod1.pdf