|
|
|
|
|
by throwawaymaths
1259 days ago
|
|
As someone who quit the parlor game for the reasons that Szilard wrote (though this is the first I read szilard) I think it's completely correct. {And it's not like I didn't have papers, I even worked directly under a nobel laureate}. I happen to think it's actually more insidious. Science kind of requires the personality type that is mentally or emotionally or socially defective in that they will dogmatically stand by the pursuit of truth. By channeling people into playing the parlor game, you either "turn" dogmatic truthseekers or burn them out and kick them into something else where you might have to sell your soul but at least it pays, like writing code that serves ads. The people left at the top are less good at being scientists, and then they're on the review committees, etc. Szilard is not cynical enough, though. There comes a point where for political reasons you dump too much money into a field where there really isn't enough expertise to effectively spend that money (California institute of regenerative medicine comes to mind). That's when you really get in trouble |
|