Certainly, women can pursue knowledge. Or can they? Can men? Can anyone?
I don’t know what you mean by this and suspect it’s beyond the scope of this piece.
It seems fairly clear to me that on average, the “scientist” of today does far less of anything that can (without diluting the word into unrecognizability) be called “science”. It may very well be much less.
Seems possible. I don’t know what the day-to-day process of past scientists was like. I wonder if something like improvements to statistics, the scientific method, etc., means that modern scientists get more learned per “time spent science” than in the past—I don’t know. This may also be outweighed by how many more scientists now than there were then.
The last point about how PhDs don’t necessarily do scientific thought makes sense. Shall I say “formal scientific thought” instead? We’re on LessWrong and may as well hold “real scientific thought” to a high standard, but if you want to conclude from this “we have most of all the people who are supposed to be scientists with us now and they’re not doing anything”, well, there’s something real to that too.
What I meant by this is that perhaps the thing I’m more directly grasping at here is “amount of time people have spent trying to do science”, with much less certainty around “how much science gets done.” If people are spending much more time trying to do science now than they ever have in the past, and less is getting done (I’m not sure if I buy this), that’s a problem, or maybe just indicative of something.
Once again, consider the case of my mother: she’s a teacher, an administrator, a curriculum designer, etc. My mother is not doing scientific thought. She’s not trying to do scientific thought.
Sure. I suppose I’m using PhDs as something of a proxy here, for “people who have spent a long time pushing on the edges of a scientific field”. Think of STEM PhDs alone if you prefe. (Though note that someone in your mother’s field could be doing science—if you say she’s not, I believe you, but limiting it to just classic STEM is also only a proxy.)
On the “who can pursue knowledge” question, it seems to me like Said’s actually saying two very different things:
Historically a large number of people likely inclined towards pursuing scientific knowledge didn’t have access to formal credentials. But this doesn’t necessarily mean they didn’t do science!
The credentialing and career system in science impedes people from pursuing scientific knowledge.
These both seem like serious critiques of the proxy you’re using, similar to using “licensed therapist” as a proxy for “attentive sympathetic listener” or “lawyer” as a proxy for “works to resolve conflicts through systematic, formal reasoning.”
Certainly, women can pursue knowledge. Or can they? Can men? Can anyone?
I don’t know what you mean by this and suspect it’s beyond the scope of this piece.
What I meant by it is just what I wrote in the rest of that paragraph, not some additional mysterious philosophical question.
This may also be outweighed by how many more scientists now than there were then.
Indeed, it may be, but then again it may not be; and if it is, then by how much? These are the important questions.
(Though note that someone in your mother’s field could be doing science—if you say she’s not, I believe you, but limiting it to just classic STEM is also only a proxy.)
Let me emphasize once again that the fact that my mother isn’t doing science is not some fluke, aberration, regrettable failing of the officially intended operation of the system, etc. Literally no one had any intention or expectation that my mother would be doing any science. That’s not why she got her doctorate, and no one within the system thinks or expects otherwise, or thinks that this is somehow a problem.
Yes, someone else “in her field” (broadly speaking) could be doing science, and some people are. That changes nothing. I never said “no one with a Ph.D. in Education is doing science”.
The point is that the identification between “people with Ph.D.s” and “people doing / trying to do / supposed to be doing science”, which you seem to be assuming, simply does not exist—not even ideally, not even in terms of “intent” of the system. Maybe it did once, but not anymore.
I suppose I’m using PhDs as something of a proxy here, for “people who have spent a long time pushing on the edges of a scientific field”. Think of STEM PhDs alone if you prefe.
Yes, the question of “how many people are there today, who have spent a long time pushing on the edges of a scientific field” is an interesting and important one. But I think that even “STEM Ph.D.s” is a poor proxy for this. (I haven’t the time right now, but I may elaborate later on why that’s the case.)
I don’t know what you mean by this and suspect it’s beyond the scope of this piece.
Seems possible. I don’t know what the day-to-day process of past scientists was like. I wonder if something like improvements to statistics, the scientific method, etc., means that modern scientists get more learned per “time spent science” than in the past—I don’t know. This may also be outweighed by how many more scientists now than there were then.
What I meant by this is that perhaps the thing I’m more directly grasping at here is “amount of time people have spent trying to do science”, with much less certainty around “how much science gets done.” If people are spending much more time trying to do science now than they ever have in the past, and less is getting done (I’m not sure if I buy this), that’s a problem, or maybe just indicative of something.
Sure. I suppose I’m using PhDs as something of a proxy here, for “people who have spent a long time pushing on the edges of a scientific field”. Think of STEM PhDs alone if you prefe. (Though note that someone in your mother’s field could be doing science—if you say she’s not, I believe you, but limiting it to just classic STEM is also only a proxy.)
On the “who can pursue knowledge” question, it seems to me like Said’s actually saying two very different things:
Historically a large number of people likely inclined towards pursuing scientific knowledge didn’t have access to formal credentials. But this doesn’t necessarily mean they didn’t do science!
The credentialing and career system in science impedes people from pursuing scientific knowledge.
These both seem like serious critiques of the proxy you’re using, similar to using “licensed therapist” as a proxy for “attentive sympathetic listener” or “lawyer” as a proxy for “works to resolve conflicts through systematic, formal reasoning.”
What I meant by it is just what I wrote in the rest of that paragraph, not some additional mysterious philosophical question.
Indeed, it may be, but then again it may not be; and if it is, then by how much? These are the important questions.
Let me emphasize once again that the fact that my mother isn’t doing science is not some fluke, aberration, regrettable failing of the officially intended operation of the system, etc. Literally no one had any intention or expectation that my mother would be doing any science. That’s not why she got her doctorate, and no one within the system thinks or expects otherwise, or thinks that this is somehow a problem.
Yes, someone else “in her field” (broadly speaking) could be doing science, and some people are. That changes nothing. I never said “no one with a Ph.D. in Education is doing science”.
The point is that the identification between “people with Ph.D.s” and “people doing / trying to do / supposed to be doing science”, which you seem to be assuming, simply does not exist—not even ideally, not even in terms of “intent” of the system. Maybe it did once, but not anymore.
Yes, the question of “how many people are there today, who have spent a long time pushing on the edges of a scientific field” is an interesting and important one. But I think that even “STEM Ph.D.s” is a poor proxy for this. (I haven’t the time right now, but I may elaborate later on why that’s the case.)