Hi Heller. How are we determining that they are the most capable? I feel like there are many ways to measure, and I think science includes the type of studying that allows people to create good websites and computer software and hardware, and good music and movies and so on (I think all these things can be researched formally). With that in mind, I’d say that the most capable science is being done by private companies.
Hopefully that makes sense. This isn’t intended to muddle the term “scientist.”
I think science includes the type of studying that allows people to create good websites and computer software and hardware, and good music and movies and so on
Thats so incredibly broad as to be a useless definition of “scientist.” Lets use “scientist” as someone engaged in basic research oriented around the natural word (as opposed to an engineer involved in more applied research). My categorization isn’t perfect, but your grouping puts musicians,actors, programmers, actuaries,engineers,etc all in to an umbrella category of “scientist.”
Most fundamental research happens at public institutions under public grants (even the private institutions get massive public subsidy). Also, as a matter of public-goods, economic theory would expect private institutions to be systematically underinvested in basic research.
I’m not suggesting that everyone who does those things is a scientist, but that those things CAN be studied scientifically.
For example, not all singers are scientists, but the people who created auto-tune probably did so through scientific research, and, at least in an objective note-matching sense, it makes singers better.
A theoretical argument, but does it hold empirically? In my experience, the most capable scientists all work for government organizations.
Hi Heller. How are we determining that they are the most capable? I feel like there are many ways to measure, and I think science includes the type of studying that allows people to create good websites and computer software and hardware, and good music and movies and so on (I think all these things can be researched formally). With that in mind, I’d say that the most capable science is being done by private companies.
Hopefully that makes sense. This isn’t intended to muddle the term “scientist.”
Thats so incredibly broad as to be a useless definition of “scientist.” Lets use “scientist” as someone engaged in basic research oriented around the natural word (as opposed to an engineer involved in more applied research). My categorization isn’t perfect, but your grouping puts musicians,actors, programmers, actuaries,engineers,etc all in to an umbrella category of “scientist.”
Most fundamental research happens at public institutions under public grants (even the private institutions get massive public subsidy). Also, as a matter of public-goods, economic theory would expect private institutions to be systematically underinvested in basic research.
I’m not suggesting that everyone who does those things is a scientist, but that those things CAN be studied scientifically.
For example, not all singers are scientists, but the people who created auto-tune probably did so through scientific research, and, at least in an objective note-matching sense, it makes singers better.