The "Science Culture"
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 3:51 pm
This is in response to Chrismb's remarks in this thread:
viewtopic.php?t=1576&start=15
[quote='Chrismb'] It's a shame that these things are for academics only. I mean, if someone has an idea who's not an academic then they wouldn't be funded to go to such a thing even if they had had some pre-warning of it, which they wouldn't've had, and even if they had means and awareness to overcome those then they'd still not be accepted to present.
I think today's "science" culture would make the blood boil of those who laid the foundations for modern science, if they were here to see it.
Maybe Aero is actually correct in the other thread - viewtopic.php?p=34548#34548 - folks can't make fusion devices in their basements - bu tnot because it is impossible but because they are effectively prevented from doing so. Maybe the mythbusters would find that out; they should try to come up with an idea, build it, patent it, seek academic support, then present it. They would find that they are refused purchase of things they need, get generalised unspecific dismissals from the patent examiners, academics would look the other way, and there would be no route to dissemination. Actually, now I dwell on it, Aero, you are probably right, but for all the wrong reasons.[/quote]
I think these days the presumption is that if you are not an academic, you don't have the credentials to be worth listening to. Now, that may not be true, but it sure makes it a lot easier on the people doing the real science if they can focus on legitimate stuff and not have to spend half their time debunking quacks who want to make perpetual motion machines with permanent magnets (which, of course, would happen if just anyone was invited).
If you've got a really good idea, I don't see why you couldn't write it up and mail it around to scientists in the field to get some feedback on it, or maybe even start a small non-profit and write a grant. I think if you did, you'd see why the science gets left to the establishment: because the equipment is so darn expensive these days. Middle-class average citizens don't have the disposable income to do these sort of things; I'm not ruling out Carmack or Elon Musk from trying (in fact, I believe Carmack experessed interest in a polywell attempt at some point).
Now, as a wannabe-academic, that Woodruff ICE sounds about as obnoxious as perpetual motion, or maybe slightly less so. So is that "spherical cusp" idea. So I think you ought to give the ICC folks some credit for being open-minded: after all, they are to the tokamak crowd what we are to them.
viewtopic.php?t=1576&start=15
[quote='Chrismb'] It's a shame that these things are for academics only. I mean, if someone has an idea who's not an academic then they wouldn't be funded to go to such a thing even if they had had some pre-warning of it, which they wouldn't've had, and even if they had means and awareness to overcome those then they'd still not be accepted to present.
I think today's "science" culture would make the blood boil of those who laid the foundations for modern science, if they were here to see it.
Maybe Aero is actually correct in the other thread - viewtopic.php?p=34548#34548 - folks can't make fusion devices in their basements - bu tnot because it is impossible but because they are effectively prevented from doing so. Maybe the mythbusters would find that out; they should try to come up with an idea, build it, patent it, seek academic support, then present it. They would find that they are refused purchase of things they need, get generalised unspecific dismissals from the patent examiners, academics would look the other way, and there would be no route to dissemination. Actually, now I dwell on it, Aero, you are probably right, but for all the wrong reasons.[/quote]
I think these days the presumption is that if you are not an academic, you don't have the credentials to be worth listening to. Now, that may not be true, but it sure makes it a lot easier on the people doing the real science if they can focus on legitimate stuff and not have to spend half their time debunking quacks who want to make perpetual motion machines with permanent magnets (which, of course, would happen if just anyone was invited).
If you've got a really good idea, I don't see why you couldn't write it up and mail it around to scientists in the field to get some feedback on it, or maybe even start a small non-profit and write a grant. I think if you did, you'd see why the science gets left to the establishment: because the equipment is so darn expensive these days. Middle-class average citizens don't have the disposable income to do these sort of things; I'm not ruling out Carmack or Elon Musk from trying (in fact, I believe Carmack experessed interest in a polywell attempt at some point).
Now, as a wannabe-academic, that Woodruff ICE sounds about as obnoxious as perpetual motion, or maybe slightly less so. So is that "spherical cusp" idea. So I think you ought to give the ICC folks some credit for being open-minded: after all, they are to the tokamak crowd what we are to them.