1895 school exam, are we dumb?

[countryboy]

Again, you have an imperfect appreciation as to how science works. Scientists do basic research, where they try to study fundamental concepts in science. Corporations do very little in terms of basic research. Most basic research is done at the universities, by the professors.

A professor writes a research proposal for a grant, usually to the government, but occasionally a corporation will sponsor a basic research proposal. In basic research, the scientist does not show an immediate practical application. He only has to show that he is studying a new scientific concept, a new scientific principle, that it has not been studied before. Then if the government has the money he will get his grant.

...which is a completely different scenario than the "project" to which you initially referred, and thus my dissertation on how it works in the real (corporate) world. Now you want to add the dimension of basic research to make it appear that you were correct all along. What a game. But one I am enjoying, I confess.

Now, a scientist may talk to corporations to get their feedback as to what kind of subject a scientist should study. Thus, if a company makes food emulsions (e.g mayonnaise, or salad dressing etc.), the scientist may decide to study the structure/property relationship of model emulsion (which may be prepared with organic solvents like benzene, and may not be food materials at all). But again, he is not going to show the corporation an immediate application to his research.

In short, a scientist does basic research, for that he takes directions from nobody, he is his own master. The research proposals are usually judged on scientific merit and relevance to the grant giving body (e.g if the proposal is to NIH, it better have something to do with biology or medicine).

In short, a scientist is not a puppet on a string manipulated by corporations as you seem to think.

I have a couple of observations on this. First of all, I think you're trying to paint a picture of zero accountability for research funds. That is both unrealistic and immature. As has become your habit, you're not taking the "big picture" into account here. Funding has to come from somewhere, and there has to be some measure of accountability for some kind of results.

You mentioned a scientist sitting on top of Mazlow's Hierarchy of Needs at the self-actualization level...sorry, I paraphrased - you used the words "In short, a scientist does basic research, for that he takes directions from nobody, he is his own master" and while that may be true in a technical sense, it is not true in a practical sense. Unless this scientist is personally wealthy, he/she (I believe in equal rights) will have an obligation to show results of their work to someone. Why? Because there is this concept with which you are obviously unfamiliar in your world...it's the old "money doesn't grow on trees" thing. Now I realize that a Liberal government can be pretty loose with the taxpayers' hard-earned money, but we got rid of them so I believe we're moving back to applying more common sense to public funding of all kinds of things, including scientific research. At least, I hope so.

That last bit of nonsense "In short, a scientist is not a puppet on a string manipulated by corporations as you seem to think" indicates that you are making assumptions again as to what I think, and I've told you before, all you have to do is ask. If being held accountable for results translates - in your mind - to being a "puppet on a string", then I suggest you have a problem in accepting authority and possibly working in team environments. Has this been an ongoing problem for you over the years, or does it just pop up during forum discussions?

 

[countryboy]

Those people come later, after scientists and engineers. Without scientists and engineers, the entrepreneurs won't have any ideas to develop. The important thing is to study the phenomenon and come up with a practical application. Once that is done, an entrepreneur will inevitably come along, if not one, then another, if not him, then somebody else. But without the initial spark of science and technology, nothing is possible.

SirJP, I can't believe you actually think this way. I realize you're involved in science and have a great deal of respect for it and I do too. After all, lots of great things have come from scientific studies. (Except for night vision goggles, lasers, kevlar, and a few other goodies...according to some Google sources, those things were plagarized from a crashed UFO...must be true, because I can link you up to sources on Google that said so!) But I digress...

In stating what you did above "But without the initial spark of science and technology, nothing is possible", you sound - excuse the expression - positively nutty. NOTHING is possible? NOTHING? Jeez, what a crazy statement to make! I used to co-compose music a long time ago, and I think our inspiration was life experiences. But we created music that people liked, although I can't recall one scientist in that crowd. I guess they were off developing technological breakthroughs or something.

NOTHING? Whew, you have problems...

 

[JLM]

Quoting SirJosephPorter These days one needs a university (or at least Community College) degree for any worthwhile job.​

So - both of you feel this to be true. So you are telling the rest of us that people who simply apprentice (electricians, plummers, gas fitters, carpenters etal) and police officers, correctional officers and on and on do not have worthwhile jobs? Nearly all of the above, earn good money. What do either of you count as "worthwhile"? If you didn't work for your wife SJP, who would you work for and what pay would you earn? What do you count as a worthwhile job TenPenny? Both of you - what does one have to know or what does one have to earn before you consider them as having a worthwhile job.
I guess there are worthwhile jobs and worthwhile people. I would rather have a whole slew of worthwhile people in my life than a bunch of worthless over educated people. Not suggesting that educated people are not worthwhile but I've certainly been in the company of many well educated people with what you two may consider to have worthwhile jobs but they are not worthwhile people. Naturally the reverse is true but I've certainly known many worthwhile people who work hard at their (to me) worthwhile jobs and I hope I never snobby enough to consider that anyone who has a job, is not working at a worthwhile one.

You've said a lot there V.I. and coming close to touching on a phenomenum that has been around for a couple of hundred years. In society and (I disagree with it) what a person does for a living defines him. A couple of hundred years ago there were about 3 occupations that were acceptable in "proper society" - the law, the clergy and the military. Chartered accountants were on tbe virge of acceptability. Of course it's all very silly - we need dozens of different and diverse occupations to thrive as a society. None of these occupations sets a person apart or above anyone else. What sets people apart on the "totem pole" is their character- are they thoughtful and compassionate? Do they help others in need? Do they keep their word and do what they say they are going to do? Getting back to the "important job" aspect, is the engineer who designs a beautiful, functional bridge a decent person if he doesn't provide for it's upkeep and maintenance and the damn thing falls down in 20 years killling 50 people? Take the doctor, how valuable is he without the nurse, or the nurse's aid or the orderly or the janitor or the people charged with keeping his tools sterilized? Sure he can cut you open repair parts and sew you up, but what good is that if the person dies a week later from infection? What good are people belonging to these highly prestigious professions if they aren't able to converse with their fellow man without always arguing with him or challenging him. Decent people try to see some merit in the other man's point of view, but at the same time if they find they are being treated like a piece of sh*t they are able to bark back. I've already broken one of my cardinal rules of brevity so will end this here, but you're on the right track V.I.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Getting worthwhile things done? Discarding programs that were set up to satisfy liberal cravings for things to look good (such as the stupid gun registry)? Doing some real budget work instead of downloading expenses to provinces (a al Paul Martin and his saving the country)? Upgrading Sir John's national railroad to current standards? Continuing to bring pride and substance back into the military after the Liberals virtually destroyed it through unwise budget cuts? Shall I go on?

Wow, he did all that, counrtyboy? Your Messiah? My, my, but he has been a busy little bee, hasn't he?

So tell me, how do you explain the sky high deficit? Liberals again? high unemployment? Liberals again? As soon as he came to power, why did he get rid of all the Liberal surplus and gave tax cuts mainly benefiting the rich? Liberals again?

If your Messiah has worked so hard to bring paradise on earth here in Canada, why is he struggling in the polls, tied with those evil Liberals? If he has such a string of stellar achievements (and reading the list of his accomplishments you have given, one could almost think that he really is the Messiah, put on this earth to rescue Canadians from those evil Liberals and to take them to Paradise, to promised Land), why isn't he in the majority territory, why do Canadians still mistrust him? The majority should rightly be his by now, after three liberal majorities in a row.

The fact is, you have a very weak leader, who is dictatorial, authoritarian and belongs to the far right. Currently he is governing from the centre right because he doesn't have a majority. But if he ever does get a majroity, his claws will come out and he will reveal his true colors.

 

[JLM]

I could not disagree with you more.

Right on again V.I. - I guess having your house painted would count as "very little happening".

 

[JLM]

"To get into college or university all you need is seventy per cent, which means your missing thirty per cent of knowledge."

I don't think that statement has the relevance you think. Writing an exam is much different from real life, in real life you have other people to check with, books you can refer to, tables, charts and graphs at your disposal, you don't have the time restraints of an examination. In most operations there is a process known as quality control ( we learned a lot when the 2nd Narrows Bridge collapsed back in '58) so every thing an engineer or doctor does is double checked. When a doctor gives you a prescription, the pharmacist checks that it makes sense. Sure after all this scrutiny mistakes are still made, but hey that's part of life that's known as "sh*t happens".

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You do have an imagination, I'll grant you that. Since when are wars, poverty, sickness, and homelessness considered to be "details?" I wasn't condemning the entire scientific and technological enterprise (as you put it)...I was pointing out to you that a great number of very serious problems remain to be solved, whether it be by science or other means. Gawd, you're sensitive about science, aren't you!

I see, so war, poverty, sickness and homelessness are the faults of science, are they? I suppose human greed, Mother Nature, corrupt governments have nothing to do with them?

You remind me of Fundamentalist Christians. They attribute everything good that happens in the world, everything good that has ever been done in the world to Christ and to Christianity, they attribute everything bad to non Christians (particularly to Atheists). Thus 9/11 terrorist attack, or Katrina disaster was the fault of homosexuals (according to Fundamentalist preachers).

Similarly, you attribute all the evils in the world to science and technology. The fact is science and technology in no way are the cause of poverty, sickness, and homelessness, it is dishonest in the extreme to blame them for it. If anything, science and technology have made great strides towards getting rid of poverty and sickness (better yielding varieties of crops, advances in medicine etc.). There is a lot less poverty and a lot less sickness in the world today than there was 100 years ago (taken overall).

The fact that you would blame these things on science clearly indicates your bias against science.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

...which is a completely different scenario than the "project" to which you initially referred, and thus my dissertation on how it works in the real (corporate) world. Now you want to add the dimension of basic research to make it appear that you were correct all along. What a game. But one I am enjoying, I confess.

I did not refer to any project, what I said was that a scientist comes up with a scientific principle, based upon that, an engineer developed a practical application for it. I said nothing about the project. The talk of project came up when you implied that the management was supreme, more important than either the scientist or an engineer. That may be true in the corporations, but not in the university, where most of the research is carried out.

I have a couple of observations on this. First of all, I think you're trying to paint a picture of zero accountability for research funds. That is both unrealistic and immature. As has become your habit, you're not taking the "big picture" into account here. Funding has to come from somewhere, and there has to be some measure of accountability for some kind of results.

Once the research grant has been granted, there is very little accountability. The scientist has to do the research that he said he was going to do, of course and obtain publications. If he squanders the money away he won't get any more grants. But there is no day to day supervision of the grant. Once the grant is given, the giving body will look at the research at the end of the life of the grant, typically 2 to 3 years. In research you need at least that long to produce anything worthwhile.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

.
You mentioned a scientist sitting on top of Mazlow's Hierarchy of Needs at the self-actualization level...sorry, I paraphrased - you used the words "In short, a scientist does basic research, for that he takes directions from nobody, he is his own master" and while that may be true in a technical sense, it is not true in a practical sense. Unless this scientist is personally wealthy, he/she (I believe in equal rights) will have an obligation to show results of their work to someone. Why? Because there is this concept with which you are obviously unfamiliar in your world...it's the old "money doesn't grow on trees" thing.

Again, you seem to have an imperfect understanding of how research works. When government, NASA, NIH or whoever gives grant to a professor, the professor is left pretty much alone to do the research. He may have communication meetings from time to time, to keep the scientists at the granting body appraised of what he is doing.

However, the granting body never ever directs the research of the professor (particularly the basic research), that is not in the spirit of research; the scientist is left alone to do the work. There is no micromanagement.

The research will be evaluated at the end of the research contract, typically 2 or 3 years. Indeed, micromanagement will be totally counterproductive in basic research, and the granting bodies are aware of that. The success of a research grant is judged by the publications that the professor generates. Those are the results of the research. There is not a team of penny pinching, stern faced managers somewhere to haul the scientist over the coals to ask him why he did a particular research in a particular way.

If you have any academic friends, I suggest you talk to them to find out how research at universities works, you seem to have an insufficient understanding of it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

.
Now I realize that a Liberal government can be pretty loose with the taxpayers' hard-earned money, but we got rid of them so I believe we're moving back to applying more common sense to public funding of all kinds of things, including scientific research. At least, I hope so.

I am sorry to burst your bubble, but if by that you mean that Conservatives will start micromanaging the basic research, you couldn’t be more wrong.

With the basic research, you have two options, either fund it or not. Canada funds very little basic research, USA funds much more. But even Conservatives don’t have the imperfect understanding of how basic research works, as you apparently do. I would be very surprised indeed, if they appoint a bureaucrat who will look over the shoulder of the professor, scrutinizing his each and every move, questioning each and every expense, questioning each and every experiment he does, questioning each and every theoretical model he develops and so on.

Basic research just doesn’t work that way. For instance, suppose somebody gets a grant to study the String Theory, or to study the Inflation of the Universe. How are you going to micromanage the research? How are you going to decide if you are getting the value for money?

The answer is, you are not. The professor will be left alone to do his work. At the end of it, he will publish papers, present them at the conferences, the papers will be judged by his colleagues and that will decide if the grant was worth giving or not.

But if you are hoping that your Messiah will micromanage basic research, you are in for a deep disappointment.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

In stating what you did above "But without the initial spark of science and technology, nothing is possible", you sound - excuse the expression - positively nutty. NOTHING is possible? NOTHING? Jeez, what a crazy statement to make! I used to co-compose music a long time ago, and I think our inspiration was life experiences. But we created music that people liked, although I can't recall one scientist in that crowd. I guess they were off developing technological breakthroughs or something.

NOTHING? Whew, you have problems...

I think you are being purposely obtuse here, countryboy. We are talking of science and technology here, of new inventions, new technological products. And in the field of inventions, technology, nothing is possible without the first spark by science and technology.

We are not talking of music here, that is an art. Don’t confuse art with science. Most of the art comes by inspiration (so do some ideas in science and technology for that matter), science and technology has nothing to say about the arts.

We are talking of new products, new inventions, new milestones in progress (computer, microwave, cell phone, internet etc.). In these fields nothing is possible without the first spark of science and technology. You may have hundreds of entrepreneurs lined up, but if there are no scientific and technical ideas for them to exploit, all their expertise will be of no avail.

 

[CDNBear]

You know, for someone that is supposedly so "smart", scientifically endowed and so on, I find it puzzling that you fail to grasp the ability to use the multiquote function.

 

[TenPenny]

My understanding is that they won't even consider anybody for certification unless they have an engineering degree.

Your understanding would be flawed.

Before you jump to cricize/insult/disagree, I say this as someone who sat on a board evaluating the experience of foreign-trained engineers, to determine if they were qualified for PEng status, so I have a little understanding of the regulations and processes for registration of PEngs, both with degrees (accredited and not) and without degrees.

 

[JLM]

S.J. Countryboy- I've been scanning your many posts and have reached the conclusion neither of you are getting anywhere. To go back to the very beginning, S.J. you've given both Countryboy and myself the distinct impression (at least speaking for myself) that you consider the work of scientists and engineers more important than other endeavours in society and the people employed at such are superior people to those performing other endeavours, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Engineers and scientists are like two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle and I might add two very important pieces - without them the puzzle would look like Hell. But the plumber, the painter, the cook, the librarian also form important pieces without which the puzzle would look like Hell. I think that sums up what Countryboy was trying to get at, while you were trying to beat him down. Hope I've clarified the situation for both of you.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Your understanding would be flawed.

Before you jump to cricize/insult/disagree, I say this as someone who sat on a board evaluating the experience of foreign-trained engineers, to determine if they were qualified for PEng status, so I have a little understanding of the regulations and processes for registration of PEngs, both with degrees (accredited and not) and without degrees.

I said it was only my understanding, TenPenny, i am not familiar with the requirements of Engineering Institutes.

As to foreign trained engineers, are you saying that they don't require a college degree? I find that astounding. I would think they would need an engineering degree from a respectable university (preferably a Canadian or an American university) before they would be certified.

 

[JLM]

You know, for someone that is supposedly so "smart", scientifically endowed and so on, I find it puzzling that you fail to grasp the ability to use the multiquote function.

Hey CDNBear, I am (being almost computer illiterate and possibly not so "smart" either) am not cognizant of the use of this function. Perhaps you could put on a clinic for us. Thanks.

 

[darkbeaver]

I see, so war, poverty, sickness and homelessness are the faults of science, are they? I suppose human greed, Mother Nature, corrupt governments have nothing to do with them?

You remind me of Fundamentalist Christians. They attribute everything good that happens in the world, everything good that has ever been done in the world to Christ and to Christianity, they attribute everything bad to non Christians (particularly to Atheists). Thus 9/11 terrorist attack, or Katrina disaster was the fault of homosexuals (according to Fundamentalist preachers).

Similarly, you attribute all the evils in the world to science and technology. The fact is science and technology in no way are the cause of poverty, sickness, and homelessness, it is dishonest in the extreme to blame them for it. If anything, science and technology have made great strides towards getting rid of poverty and sickness (better yielding varieties of crops, advances in medicine etc.). There is a lot less poverty and a lot less sickness in the world today than there was 100 years ago (taken overall).

The fact that you would blame these things on science clearly indicates your bias against science.

Without science there would be no genocide, no concentration camps, no biological weapons, no atomic bombs and no machine guns. There is no greater servant of evil than modern science. Science and technology have made no advance whatever against poverty ignorance or disease. There has never in all recorded history been so much poverty and want as there is in our world today.

Religion is right, because it is science ... and science is wrong, because it is religion.
"Myth is born from science." -- Charles F. Dupuis, polymath,

 

[Johnnny]

Has anyone mentioned Diamond drillers? Some diamond drillers make way more money then a gold geologist

 

[SirJosephPorter]

S.J. Countryboy- I've been scanning your many posts and have reached the conclusion neither of you are getting anywhere. To go back to the very beginning, S.J. you've given both Countryboy and myself the distinct impression (at least speaking for myself) that you consider the work of scientists and engineers more important than other endeavours in society and the people employed at such are superior people to those performing other endeavours, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Engineers and scientists are like two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle and I might add two very important pieces - without them the puzzle would look like Hell. But the plumber, the painter, the cook, the librarian also form important pieces without which the puzzle would look like Hell. I think that sums up what Countryboy was trying to get at, while you were trying to beat him down. Hope I've clarified the situation for both of you.

Science and technology are the two most important pieces, JLM, without them very little would make sense. If you want to use the jig saw puzzle analogy, then science and technology would be two crucial pieces, without which you won’t be able to put together the puzzle. They are more important pieces than say part of the sky or part of the grass etc.

All kind of people, all kind of professions are important for the proper functioning of the society. However, without science and technology, there are no advances.

Indeed, even before enlightenment, when science took off in a big way, we had plumbers, cooks etc for thousands of years. Society remained at subsistence farming level for thousands of years. When science and technology took off, when there were important advances in both, that is when the society came out of subsistence farming level and proceeded on to industrial age, computer age, information age etc. (and soon to come, nanotechnology age).

Without science and technology none of it was possible. They are the two most important pieces when it comes to advancement of society. Without science and technology most of us would still be farmers, trying to barely eke out a living from the land. Population of the world may be less than a billion, and not more than six billion.

 

[JLM]

" I would think they would need an engineering degree from a respectable university (preferably a Canadian or an American university) before they would be certified."

I do believe the chaps at institutions like Cambridge and Oxford might take insult at a remark like that.