tcco94
Future GTA VI Pilot
What!? Nonsense!!
1500 rule in possible jeopardy
- Thread starter Maximilian_Jenius
- Start date
Bolo
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
NovemberEcho
Dergs favorite member
Great song
Bolo
Well-Known Member
Damn straight!
Richman
JC’s Resident Curmudgeon
Point is if you leave a study in the hands of those who would benefit from a specific result, you may be disappointed. Especially if the study is conducted by those who've never turned a wheel.
Been there, done that.
Say it with me "con-firm-a-shun bi-ass"
Richman
Been there, done that.
Say it with me "con-firm-a-shun bi-ass"
Richman
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
We should just stop doing studies and research. It's all BS anyway, right?
Richman
JC’s Resident Curmudgeon
Say it with me: "Reeed-ing comp-ree-hehnnn-shunn"
"....those who would benefit from a specific result..."
If you want to go put lipstick on bunny rabbits to see if it causes a rash of bunny bites in humans, that's on you.
If you want to take public money to do research affecting the safety of the air transportation system, when any such changes would stand to benefit your organization directly, yea, not so much.
Richman
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
Don't be a jerk, and we will get along fine.
Ok, now that we've cleared that up...
By your standard, climate scientists cannot do climate studies because they are paid by NOAA. Clearly you have to be skeptical, as that's what science is all about. That's why there are peer reviews.
NovemberEcho
Dergs favorite member
Actually no, that's not right, because those climate scientists don't benefit by a particular result. Now, climate scientists paid by an oil company benefit by a certain result, and so their research is compromised.
Richman
JC’s Resident Curmudgeon
Depends on who you get to be your "peers".
In reality, if you want a good fundable follow on to your project, you get "peers" that think just like you do. If you want your peer reviewed paper to be well received, you send it to people who think just like you do. If you think journals don't work like that, then I can't help you. Spend some time in the lab and come back and we'll discuss it.
Oh, you mean "peer reviewed"...like getting a reproducible result? Shhhh! That happens after the checks are doled out.
And yes, "Funding is on my mind, funding is always on my mind" is pretty much the song of science these days. In many cases the compensation (not to mention prestige) PIs receive from their universities or other institutions are DIRECLY related to the grant money they get rolling in.
As far as climate science....der uberlords at NOAA, the one's that write the checks, are political appointments. When they say "hmmm, a Representative who sits on the ways and means committee...the one who writes our checks, is concerned that there is a lack of lilac scented unicorn flautus"...word gets out and every project looking for money (which is to say all of them) will have the key words "unicorn flautus" in it's proposal.
But that's all OK, as long as the researchers aren't invested in specific results. But having been around the block a time or two, and have seen the results of some squishy science, I can tell you that's MUCH harder done than said.
Richman
In reality, if you want a good fundable follow on to your project, you get "peers" that think just like you do. If you want your peer reviewed paper to be well received, you send it to people who think just like you do. If you think journals don't work like that, then I can't help you. Spend some time in the lab and come back and we'll discuss it.
Oh, you mean "peer reviewed"...like getting a reproducible result? Shhhh! That happens after the checks are doled out.
And yes, "Funding is on my mind, funding is always on my mind" is pretty much the song of science these days. In many cases the compensation (not to mention prestige) PIs receive from their universities or other institutions are DIRECLY related to the grant money they get rolling in.
As far as climate science....der uberlords at NOAA, the one's that write the checks, are political appointments. When they say "hmmm, a Representative who sits on the ways and means committee...the one who writes our checks, is concerned that there is a lack of lilac scented unicorn flautus"...word gets out and every project looking for money (which is to say all of them) will have the key words "unicorn flautus" in it's proposal.
But that's all OK, as long as the researchers aren't invested in specific results. But having been around the block a time or two, and have seen the results of some squishy science, I can tell you that's MUCH harder done than said.
Richman
Last edited:
Richman
JC’s Resident Curmudgeon
FIFY. Trying to be even here...
That said, the pursuit of funding dollars has always led to a "trimming of the sails to the prevailing wind", even if it requires "more research". Which of course, requires more funding. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Don't get me wrong. Good science gets done all the time. But it happens in spite of the process, not because of it.
Richman
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who aren't interested in an objective measurement of the aptitude of their aviation abilities. They don't really want to know the answer.
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
A man's got to know his limitations.
Nark
Macho Superpilot
Unfortunately many pilots aren't afforded the opportunity to discover their limits.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Precisely my point.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Still don't follow your point.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
My point is that there are a lot of pilots who are not actually interested in objective measurement of their airmanship -- just like I posted initially.
Your rolling-your-eyes icon, and coupling it with a Top Gun picture to imply that my point is moot because it is some kind of fighter pilot chest beating, doesn't counter that point. It is an ad hominem attack.
What kind of additional explanation would you like to help you "follow" the point?