@ChrisWhite Every time I hit "exit to desktop" in Oblivion, the game crashes and the "Windows is searching for a solution" dialogue pops up. Is that something to be worried about?
In all seriousness though, I think doing pure science and yet earning quite a lot is not the usual situation, and if you do make a lot of money you're very lucky to.
Oh come on, can you stop being childish about that? I think that, by now, we'd dispelled your illusion that nobody appreciates your dear experimental physics.
I didn't say anything about not appreciating experiment. I just guess that whatever "pure science" means probably excludes most of what experimentalists do.
@DanielSank By my earlier comment, referencing the famous quote by some judge who was asked to define "hardcore pornography", I meant to make clear that I will not attempt to define it because that is destined to fail misterably
@0celo7 printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.
Here's what I think is a better one: media designed to bring pleasure to the consumer via sexual arousal, but which is not lawfully allowed for public display.
@Danu with definitions you just have to accept that some of the "obvious" cases will fail. Then you realize that they really weren't so obvious to begin with, and you learn something by having your point of view altered!
@Danu Yes. It's a great thing to do. You really learn about your preconceived notions by doing this. It's a lot like writing a computer program.
@DanielSank I already said that I interpreted it in a more nuanced way---I don't actually believe it's particularly hard to earn a decent living in science.
@DanielSank No, you realize you should adjust your definition :P
You think you know what you want your program to do, but then when you try you find that certain "obvious" cases don't work. Then you realize that they really weren't so "obvious".
@DanielSank I didn't really mean to imply that it was objective. I do think it is a cop-out to claim that your lacking definition is immediately reason to reconsider the entire framework
@DanielSank ok and isnt that really kind of a happy accident that happened, a kind of phase change resulting from the incredibly lucky scenario of google acquiring the martinis lab? did you get a raise after the acquisition? postdocs/ grad students are well known not to be doing it for "financial remuneration".
DS the thing is, we're probably on the same side! would personally very much like to see scientists highly financially remunerated. that they generally arent (and understand this is contrary to stereotypes) is a mild indictment of the capitalist system.
@alarge lol, one would like to think something so relevant/ intrinsic to daily life, financial compensation, is more "intelligently determined" than merely "accidental"... aka "random walk" etc
@vzn One would probably like to think that one's "achievements" are more than just dumb luck, but the truth is that "success" really comes through luck. With work you get a higher probability of striking gold, but still.
@alarge however, will play devils advocate (in your favor). was reading something, or maybe someone told me, that said the concept of job pay may be somewhat cultural. in one language, forget which (possibly spanish), the term translates roughly to "winnings"... eg as in the same with gambling.
@DanielSank Wow, I find it strange that you can have such a different impression. In mathematics, you always generalize what which you already know in a most natural way, ensuring that the "obvious (prospective) truths" actually are truths.
@DanielSank And you really didn't try enough in the attempted defintions you made to reasonably claim that they should be kept, over obvious (pre-established) truths.
Maybe the programming example was much better, but I don't understand it.
@DanielSank it totally depends on the occupation. capitalism is notorious for "warping" of pay eg with CEOs, sports/ hollywood figures, etc...! and one is never gonna get rich cleaning toilets. etc!
@Danu In your opinion. You don't know how much I've thought about what "life" should mean (if we wish to give it an objective meaning, which is not always useful in human discourse).
@vzn Sports figures are not over paid. Their performances generate enormous advertising and ticket reveanues. It's only "too much" if you simply decide that you don't like it.
@DanielSank there are vast numbers of "scientists" making "not a lot". there are a few very well compensated ones. just like most occupations. ("long tail".) and possibly somewhat worse on average.
@Danu omg, yes, of course I didn't come up with a great definition. We traded what, five comments on that? My point is just that it's ok to come up with a definition which doesn't always match your preconceived notions.
@vzn Dude, do you know what the median income is in the US? It's probably lower than you think.
DS anyway dont really know why youre arguing so vehemently against scientists not making a lot of money. so what? who cares? isnt that the typical response?
