Shocking news!

Sparks

So, I can't get my basic research grant into nonlinear estimation for navigation of an automated aerial platform, but you can get funding for a scientific study that says politicians lie?
Grrr.....

Jaden

9.33 Posts per day is the reason you can't get a grant.....

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Jaden
9.33 Posts per day is the reason you can't get a grant.....

lol!

Victor

Originally posted by Sparks
So, I can't get my basic research grant into nonlinear estimation for navigation of an automated aerial platform

Just say it's for Predator UAVs and you will quickly get part of the defense budget.

Sparks

Oh, whoop, another professional researcher's opinion is it?
*sheesh*
:rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Jaden
9.33 Posts per day is the reason you can't get a grant.....

Roffle

Nonetheless, slightly OT, but I’ve had to work with the fruits of academic research in the past. Some years back I worked for a company that developed CBR search engines for a number of clients’ expert systems. All of our algorithms came (proudly) from research projects in a small number of European universities specializing in the various schools of AI.

However, it didn’t take long for me to notice that our source code had big dirty hacks in it. The truth, I learned at a ridiculously expensive dinner in Paris from a number of developers from similar firms, is that none of these acclaimed algorithms actually work in a Real World (TM) context - hence the dirty hacks. The university accreditations were there only there for marketing reasons for our firms. One firm didn’t even use the algorithms it was claiming to use, because they were so flaky. And indeed, when I took out the hacks in our own code and began to look at the results returned, they were ridiculously off the mark.

Moral of the story, I suppose, is that academics, cocooned as they are in their special little World, tend to lose touch with the Real World (TM) and end up take themselves and what they do way too seriously. Which I suppose is why you get silly research projects getting funding over worthier ones and academics with the enough time to post 9.33 times per day... :rolleyes:

Sparks

Thanks TC. So apparently, because you came across a few dodgy academics, I'm a dodgy academic?
And I can post 9.33 posts a day because I can touch-type at around 100-120wpm. Thanks for asking.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
Thanks TC. So apparently, because you came across a few dodgy academics, I'm a dodgy academic?
And I can post 9.33 posts a day because I can touch-type at around 100-120wpm. Thanks for asking.

Not at all. I've just come to believe over the years that all academics are dodgy - out of touch, with way too much time on their hands, often irrelevant to the Real World (TM) and rife with cronyism. That is related to the topic you began, is it not?

I wasn't singling you out at all

Sparks

Actually, I was trying to single out one example of a dodgy research project. That's normal practise for those of us that don't live in ivory towers. Those who pursue such projects for sensationalism (and gee, I'm not looking at anyone in particular, Warick...) give the rest of us a bad name. Not all research projects are totally blue-sky, and many of those that are tend to have beneficial outcomes. Admittedly mine won't be saving lives in Africa any time soon, but to say it's a waste of time, even by general implication, is rather insulting.

Jaden

If I were bothered to look for the "Troll" Gathering card, I would. But I'm not an academic, so I don't have the time.

Up to 9.56 Posts per day - Good to see the research is coming along!

sam

yeah, on the other hand if we didnt have researchers, you lot (jaden and corinthian) would probably still be living in caves. or out farming..

no, writing software for a company to keep records, or trading, doesnt create wealth (while it may perform important functions in the day to day running of things etc), its new technology that creates wealth.. its why you can have a 9-5 job doing basically nothing and still be sure of getting food the next day

where does this new technology come from? from monkeys, of course. the end.

ps: oh yeah, i remember a time when you(jaden) had 10+ posts a day.. quake board.. HMM, IT SEEMS THAT THE CAT HAS BEEN CAUGHT BY THE VERY PERSON THAT WAS TRYING TO CATCH HIM?! THE IRONING IS DELICIOUS

The Corinthian

Originally posted by sam
yeah, on the other hand if we didnt have researchers, you lot (jaden and corinthian) would probably still be living in caves. or out farming..

Academic research has brought forward many innovations in history, but to say that such innovation is limited to academia would be fairly ridiculous. De Vinci wasn’t exactly a lecturer, and I’m not even certain if all of the Wright brothers even had any degrees. Many modern innovations have, regrettably, been a result of military sponsored research, while today corporate R&D labs are increasingly becoming more and more relevant in the field of innovation than universities.

The point I raised is not that all academic research is bogus, but that far too much of it has become so. Even Sparks highlighted what he considered a potentially dubious research project that was receiving funding, but then took offence when I suggested that it may be the academic environment that is the reason for such dross.

no, writing software for a company to keep records, or trading, doesnt create wealth (while it may perform important functions in the day to day running of things etc), its new technology that creates wealth.. its why you can have a 9-5 job doing basically nothing and still be sure of getting food the next day

Actually, labour that reduces inefficiency ‘creates’ wealth by virtue that the opportunity cost of not using that labour would result in lost utility. It’s one of the reasons for labour specialization. I suggest that you go read up on economic theory for a bit and then come back.

sam

Academic research has brought forward many innovations in history, but to say that such innovation is limited to academia would be fairly ridiculous.

i agree with the above, if your definition of academia is "formal study"

labour that reduces inefficiency ‘creates’ wealth by virtue that the opportunity cost of not using that labour would result in lost utility

my point was that it reduces inefficiency, but you cannot have it(the extra wealth) at all without research. labour that reduces inefficiency doesnt create wealth, it merely 'reduces' 'inefficiency'.. to put it another way, sure, sowing crops will result in the farmer being able to reap food, (if he didnt sow the crops then his farming knowledge/research would be unused, an example of 0% efficiency) but sowing crops alone will not result in the farmer being 'wealthier' as in 'enjoying a better standard of life' 10 years later.. it will just result in him reaching a sustainable standard of life.. (cant call it high or low, as they have to be relative to something) new research developments will, on the other hand, result in that standard increasing to the levels we see today.

this is precisely why i left in the following caveat:

doesnt create wealth (while it may perform important functions in the day to day running of things etc)

I suggest that you read my post more carefully before forming an opinion on my knowledge of "economic theory" from it.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by sam
i agree with the above, if your definition of academia is "formal study"

Academia is the formal community with the official purpose of higher education and research.

my point was that it reduces inefficiency, but you cannot have it(the extra wealth) at all without research. labour that reduces inefficiency doesnt create wealth, it merely 'reduces' 'inefficiency'.. to put it another way, sure, sowing crops will result in the farmer being able to reap food, but sowing crops alone will not result in the farmer being 'wealthier' as in 'enjoying a better standard of life' 10 years later.. it will just result in him reaching a sustainable standard of life.. (cant call it high or low, as they have to be relative to something) new research developments will, on the other hand, result in that standard increasing to the levels we see today.

I see your point; it just doesn’t make sense in this discussion. You would argue that labour to reduce inefficiency in the production of final goods or services, does not produce wealth (by this reasoning a tractor manufacturer does not produce anything). You further postulate that research, which invents this means to reduce inefficiency, does result in an increase of wealth (hence for you an invention to reduce inefficiency that is not even implemented is the creation of wealth).

You’re contradicting yourself - If not, please explain the difference, in your eyes.

sam

ok, here was my original quote:

yeah, on the other hand if we didnt have researchers, you lot (jaden and corinthian) would probably still be living in caves. or out farming..

now technically, if there was no research, of any sort, we would probably still be living in caves. that was my point. do you dispute this?

the secondary point about creation of wealth, is a bit relative.. but still, taking your example of a tractor manufacturing plant, who is creating the wealth there, the designers, or the workers? what makes the tractor worker any different to a farmer? how is it that for the same amount of effort, the tractor worker can produce equipment that will do the job of 10 farmers? taking it a level further, in a few decades, all this will be automated. who will be credited with the creation of the tractors then, the robots, or their creators?

maybe i should re-phrase it as "relative to the wealth-creating potential of successful new methods found by research", "the wealth created by "writing software for a company to keep records, or trading,"(my exact words) is negligible. the same way as a calculator's solar cell technically "creates wealth" every time it is exposed to light, but offers no potential for advancement.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by sam
ok, here was my original quote:
now technically, if there was no research, of any sort, we would probably still be living in caves. that was my point. do you dispute this?

Not at all, but we would also still be living in caves if no one implemented these ideas, which you do seem to ignore.

the secondary point about creation of wealth, is a bit relative.. but still, taking your example of a tractor manufacturing plant, who is creating the wealth there, the designers, or the workers? what makes the tractor worker any different to a farmer? how is it that for the same amount of effort, the tractor worker can produce equipment that will do the job of 10 farmers? taking it a level further, in a few decades, all this will be automated. who will be credited with the creation of the tractors then, the robots, or their creators?

All of them, a notion which you rejected, are inputs in the production of wealth - The labour of the farmer, and the tractor (or robot) manufacturer, the inventor of the tractor (or robot) and even the capitalist who funded the inventor, manufacturer and/or farmer. You on the other hand have been more selective about who is creating wealth without suggesting a utilitarian argument (and describing wealth, that’s how you’ll have to do it) for doing so.

the same way as a calculator's solar cell technically "creates wealth" every time it is exposed to light, but offers no potential for advancement.

That’s a different argument to what you said. You argued that it “reduces inefficiency doesn’t create wealth”, not that it “offers no potential for advancement”.

Which returns me to my suggestion that you go read up on economic theory for a bit and then come back.

Sparks

but then took offence when I suggested that it may be the academic environment that is the reason for such dross.

Actually TC, I took offence at the the suggestion that all academics are producing dross (and thus by inclusion, I am).

The detached nature of the academic environment isn't something that overly worries me - it's perfectly possible, after all, to do academic research while working on a serious real-world problem. This is because the academic environment isn't set by colleges and research centers - it's set by journals and conferences and publication standards. As evidenced by some of the greatest academic works we have - which were done by people operating outside colleges and universities (Einstein being the famous example).

sam

but we would also still be living in caves if no one implemented these ideas, which you do seem to ignore.

that wasnt my point. my point was simply that without research, there wouldnt be much advancement over time.

That’s a different argument to what you said. You argued that it “reduces inefficiency doesn’t create wealth”, not that it “offers no potential for advancement”.

right, so its actually my language skills that are at fault here, just replace "wealth" in the original post by "advancement", and youll get what i actually meant.

Jaden

I formally retract everything I have ever said, and now, in public offer sincere thanks to sam, who through playing Quake on college PCs more than anyone else I know, has allowed me to move out of a cave, and into my lovely new mud hut.

Cheers Koopa.

But seriously, academic research, as Corinthian has pointed out, is becoming less and less important, when compared to the work of privately funded research. It still has it's uses mind you, as academic research, by it's nature, is not as concerned with providing marketable results, as private research generally is. This allows a certain freedom of movement that is often required to make a real breakthrough. For this reason alone, academic research should be lauded.

However, and I accept that this is a generalisation, and based only on my own subjective experience, acedemics tend to be quite insulated from the real world (tm) that they claim to be improving. This detachment, while sometimes seen as a strength, is their real weakness. They tend to be unfocused, easily sidetracked, and very hostile to critisism of any kind. I worked closely with dozens of researchers in several universities in both Europe and the states, and most could be classified as above.

In Summary:

9.57 posts per day, stop wasting tax money and go and so something useful. Regardless of the speed you type, you still spend a large chunk of your time fluting about on these boards.

PS, with 100-120 words per minute, you should have little problem getting a job as a personal assistant. Just don't mention the academic research thing on your CV.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by sam
right, so its actually my language skills that are at fault here, just replace "wealth" in the original post by "advancement", and youll get what i actually meant.

No, with respect, what is at fault is that you were using a contradictory and nonsensical rebuttal. Changing your argument and saying that what you said originally is not what you really meant to say, is not very believable, TBH.

Or in layman’s terms, you were talking complete rubbish.

sam

if i applied your own logic to your own posts, on this thread, youve said "I've just come to believe over the years that all academics are dodgy - out of touch, with way too much time on their hands". then later on you say (when we're talking about creation of wealth) "All of them, a notion which you rejected, are inputs in the production of wealth" - so, how does the point about academics "having too much time on their hands" factor into the argument as long as they are still creating wealth? from a medieval farmer point of view, i could claim the same about just about everyone working in the world today, that they have "far too much free time".

oh, and kindly stop extrapolating things from my post and assuming thats what i said.. eg. "saying that what you said originally is not what you really meant to say, is not very believable, TBH" , and "All of them, a notion which you rejected" - i asked a bunch of questions, i didnt reject or accept any notions..

or in laymans terms, keep these opinions of what i rejected, and what i meant to say, to yourself, as they are complete rubbish.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by sam
oh, and kindly stop extrapolating things from my post and assuming thats what i said.. eg. "saying that what you said originally is not what you really meant to say, is not very believable, TBH" , and "All of them, a notion which you rejected" - i asked a bunch of questions, i didnt reject or accept any notions..

You asked a bunch of rhetorical questions designed to express your point, which you redefined later on in this discussion. Unless you prefer to edit or delete what you’ve already said, it’s fairly clear that you changed your tack, then attempted to play the “that’s what I meant all along card”. It’s not very convincing.

or in laymans terms, keep these opinions of what i rejected, and what i meant to say, to yourself, as they are complete rubbish.

You mean stop showing you up as an intellectual fraud?

bonkey

Originally posted by Jaden
But seriously, academic research, as Corinthian has pointed out, is becoming less and less important, when compared to the work of privately funded research.

I'm not sure that this is true.

I think what is happening is that academic research is increasingly becoming another form of privately funded research - and it is in this arena that it can suffer.

"Pure" academic research should not be concerned with the market viability of the subject matter, IMHO. For example, theoretical physicists should not try and say "well, this quantum stuff....will we be able to do anything with it once we've formed our theories". They should just research the stuff, and try and figure out what is going on, why, and how it all fits together.

Industry then steps in and picks up the directionless fruits of their labour, and incorporates the theory into real-world applications such as the electron tunnelling microscope, or the read/write heads of modern hard disks. But until it was clear that quantum mechanics might have useful applications, there was no real incentive for anyone to invest in it....which is the failing of private industry.

Unfortunately, no-one wants to foot the bill for much of the "base" research. Industry wants to use it...but not pay for all the possible projects, some of which turn up trumps and some of which are lemons. Would IBM invest billions into M-Theory as the possible successor to QM, on the hope that someday it may privide some new insights which will allow them to build some new generation of computing devices? Hell no...they'll let someone else do the groundwork, and then let some uni-head theorise about practical applications, and then put a team on it to develop, patent, and then benefit from the application of the theory.

We see this and think "wow, IBM do the coolest research. Just look at that cool new use of cutting-edge physics" and at the same time say "just as well it wasnt done by a university, or it wouldnt work", despite the fact that all of the groundwork probably was done in a university by those "pie in the sky" airheads that havent a clue what the real world is about.

When asked who would be a better choice of investment, we would immediately say IBM. Their patent is worth millions/billions, while the university only had a group of airheads who couldnt produce anything practical and revenue-generating to save their lives.

Hardly fair, but there you go....

As a result of all this, universities etc. have no option but to enter the "applied research" race in order to generate their own funding. This - I would agree - is not always as successful as so-called "real-world" research, and part of the blame has to lie in the fact that universities are having to balance the differing mindsets of "is this worth researching" and "is this research going to generate worth" - something which "real-world" research doesnt have to balance as much.

Its a chicken and egg situation. No-one wants to pay for the pure research, forcing the universities to find a way to make it self-financing, which can only really be done through applied research....which is not what they seem to be best at. As a result, we knock the university-based applied research and - I feel - underestimate its contributions and intrinsic worth.

jc

bonkey

Oh - and would sam and Corinthian calm down. If you really want to continue your Punch and Judy show, take it to PMs or somewhere else.

jc

sam

you can continue this by PM if you want, in case you dont want to piss people off on these boards

<edited by JC>
So can you Sam. I asked this to stop. This doesnt mean "one last post and then stop". I'll PM you the removed content.
</edit>

Sparks

bonkey,
Thanks for that post, you expressed the purpose of basic research for me and saved me typing (I'd have stressed the importance of the mathematical techniques basic research often produces, which have enormous impact on daily life, but I doubt I'd be believed :rolleyes: )

And Jaden, nice try, but I'm not biting.