Little hard evidence that idle science spurs innovation

Little HARD evidence innovations flows from idle science

When scientists are young, producing published articles, they demand hard evidence and plenty of it.

But when eminent and in their dotage, they bypass missing hard evidence when it suits their special pleading.

Never more so when they argue before governments, businesses and the public that almost all inventions now and in the past are/were the fruits of pure idle science, not of the labours of inventors and tinkers.

They make a two forked argument here - rather like the pitch of the Devil.

Fork one of their false claims is when they say there is no place for the amateur of science, who does it merely for the love of discovery - better leave the heavy lifting to paid professionals  —- rather like themselves.

Fork two of their fake argument is that the world advances best when scientists like themselves don’t work for money, for industry, upon applications dreamed up by grantors, but rather idly tinker about, with applications and technological innovation the inevitable fruit of the idle play of the free mind.

Translation —- for this cant very much needs translation  —they want the public taxpayer to fund them as latter-day aristocrats of science, Gentlemen of Science, not to hire them as mere scientific employees.

Their lab coats must be white collar, not blue collar.

But while the origins of some inventions and innovations can be traced to the work of academic scientists involved in experiments without immediate application, the university press release trumpeting their success never fails to see those immediate applications. (Insert here the magical thinking word : cure for cancer.)

However most innovations have come from non-academic scientists, indeed from non-scientists.

And here I am hoisting scientists on their own petard : for with one voice, they claim a scientist needs at least a PhD, if not a permanent university position, to qualify for that term.

So the inventive entrepreneur with a BSc (Hons) in organic chemistry still doesn’t quality as a scientist.

Inventors intent on inventing the wholly new and tinkers intend on merely improving the existing are and have always been the lifeblood of innovation.

In turn - and here’s real irony for you Alanis -  those innovations by non-scientists have led to most of the discoveries made in pure idle science.

Inventors and tinkers and engineers and profit-driven capitalists have constantly improved our tools of measuring and observing throughout the centuries and enabled pure scientists to see deeper further clearer to make visible the new worlds they discover.

Frankly all this foolish efforts by scientists to up their collective social status to the stratosphere goes back to the Reform Act of 1832 : the old land-based aristocracy faded and since 1832, well to do families seeking  to maintain permanent wealth and comfort for themselves and their kids prefer to invest most all of their money in very expensive education.

Because money is still in short supply  ——as is genius.

The kids of the well to do rarely feel the hunger needed to become the geniuses produced by toil and effort, so parents load them up instead with professional qualifications and post docs, after an early life of extra tutoring, education trips and toys, best schools and universities.

This only works if the best jobs demand paper qualifications over raw genius.

So the dutiful swot kids of the well to do become competent profs, while the genius kids of the poor become inventors and entrepreneurs.

The merely competent always fear the raw genius, hence the ceaseless campaign to up the social standing of idle aristocratic science while putting down the real innovations of inventors & tinkers geniuses and the sheer boring hard work of thousands of competent engineers and technicians.

Sad, because the real truth is they all need each other - they all fed off the inspiration thrown up by all the others’ new ideas and new innovations....