Why are scientists so brilliant?

Post Reply New Topic

It's the other way around; people who are brilliant in the ways that make them good scientists will tend to become scientists. That doesn't mean they're brilliant at other things--lord knows I'm not good at most things, even though I'm a born scientist.

I am going to be a scientist (and already am one, in some minor ways) not because I want money but because I want to have a job that will let me keep thinking and learning. Many scientists are just like that. If they wanted money, they could have gone into industry. Scientists tend to make a living wage, enough for a middle-class existence, but overall they're not a rich bunch, and they often live below the poverty line until they have a graduate degree--sometimes even after that. We do it because we like it, simple as that. Money isn't everything, and for someone who loves science, once there's enough money that you're not worried about losing your home, other things take priority.

Don't be so pessimistic about science just because it's not perfect. We haven't cured cancer, but think about just how complex a problem cancer is. How do you target cancer cells when in many ways they are indistinguishable from healthy cells? A person with cancer has a body that is fighting a civil war. We've gotten somewhere with it--we have treatments for most types of cancer and cures for some types. We have a vaccine against the virus that causes much of the cervical cancer in women. Cancer isn't just one problem; it's many, many problems depending on the type of cancer, the tissue it started in, whether it's spread, even the person's general health and age. "Curing cancer" is a lot like "Solving mathematics". We've proved a lot of theorems, but the whole thing may never be solved. We're more likely to just get better and better treatments until cancer becomes mostly survivable and perhaps even, in some cases, only a minor health problem.

As for autism: We've made headway there, too. It was a major step forward just to recognize it as a distinct phenomenon, to distinguish between autism and schizophrenia and between autism and intellectual disability. Then we had to recognize that it was neurological rather than the result of "refrigerator mothers", and we had to realize how common it actually was and how often it was found both in people with ID and in people who could speak fluently. We had to investigate and reject vaccines as a cause. We're looking into epigenetics and the interactions between genes. The disability rights movement is starting to help autistic children get useful educations and autistic adults get employed. There are new therapies besides the antiquated and often abusive Lovaas-style ABA on the horizon, and they show promise--especially the ones that focus on communication.

Science isn't perfect, but people aren't perfect. Is it really so surprising that we haven't solved the world's big problems yet? They are really, really big problems. And if you think you can do better, then pitch in. The more people are contributing, the more likely somebody will add a key piece to the puzzles of the world.

"There is no cure insight for Cancer, a disease that continues to claim many lives throughout the world today. Nobody understands what causes autism, bipolar and many other mental conditions we live with in society."

I don't think this has a thing to do with the intelligence of scientists, but rather has everything to do with the allocation of research monies. Had cancer or autism received as much research money as AIDS, a cure would likely be much closer if not realized. This is what happens when we allow government to decide how to use our money rather than deciding for ourselves.

And there are so many different cancers. Treatment for one may not be effective for another.

Isn't it marvelous that the connection was made between human papilloma virus and cervical cancer? A simple vaccine can prevent the viral infection that causes the cancer. Not a cure, but a prevention. Score one for science and medicine.

There is a LOT of money dedicated to cancer research. Pharmeutical companies know that with populations getting older in developped countries there will be a lot of money to be made from cancer treatements.

This is the extent of our greed, it’s also an unfortunate view of how those at the top of the food chain treat us, in the name of profit.

All of these cancer treatments and more have been suppressed despite evidence that they are effective remedies for cancer.

Royal Rife’s Coordinate Resonance Technology.
The Hoxsey Therapy
The Gerson Therapy.
Essiac.
Vitamin B17.

Cancer treatments and possible cures have been suppressed by big Pharmaceutical companies and the American Medical Association for moe than 50 years.

Autism began just over 100 years ago, nobody in the medical profession understands what causes the condition and there is no known treatment for the main symptums and no cure. It makes you wonder.

What are the actual amounts going to cancer and AIDS? That's all that matters in this discussion. Prove me wrong.

Scientists havent found the elixer of life, the perpetual motion machine, time machines, nor even cold fusion, either.

Thats the "fault"(if fault needs to be found) of nature, and not of either scientists, nor of society.

I think one of the problems is that science hasn't had any new paradigms now in many years. Anybody who has read Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" will understand what I'm talking about. Kuhn noticed a pattern whereby a new paradigm is adopted despite much resistance from scientists invested in the old paradigm. The reason new paradigms are adopted is that they are able to solve problems not amenable to solution with the old paradigm.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIm8fHxqUAM[/youtube]

A salesperson is not a scientist.

Big Pharma is a cancerous growth in the history of medical science, but it is not representative of research science in general.

I am sure there are individual scientists who take the gift, attend the luncheon, go on the junket and then feel obliged when the Big Pharma representative they met at the crossroads comes to take his due, but they are not representative.

The woman in the video never had anything to do with scientific research. She was a paid pusher as she makes clear. Her testimony cannot be held up as indicative of anything about research.

Regarding the idea that a paradigm shift is needed, I think the idea is not really supported by the facts.

Discovery in the sciences is happening faster than ever before. The rate of discovery is on a curve approaching an asymptote (the origin of the "singularity" concept) -- the rate of change and discovery is accelerating. It only seems static to those who choose not to avail themselves of the ever increasing flood of information (available through an ever increasing number of channels) about these discoveries;
https://www.sciencenews.org/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/
http://www.plosone.org/

[edited to add]
Fun data in the form of Pubmed stats visualized (publications by language. the black line is English publications/10 that is to say the true number is 10 times higher):
http://dan.corlan.net/medline-trend/lan ... olute.html

http://dan.corlan.net/cgi-bin/medline-trend?Q=Autism
http://dan.corlan.net/cgi-bin/medline-trend?Q=cancer

I think we are on the cusp of a paradigm shift relevant to this thread. The old (and current) paradigm is nature versus nurture, genes versus environment. But the emerging science of epigenetics is starting to shift this either/or dichotomy. Genes and environment are starting to look interactive. Researchers are finding that environmental factors can switch genes on or off. Once medicine catches up with this, I think it will change healthcare in interesting ways.

Regarding the idea that a paradigm shift is needed, I think the idea is not really supported by the facts.

First, Kuhn's book is one of the most influential books on science ever written. And it is well supported by facts. Still, my statement was an implicit hypothetical: IF a new paradigm was developed that could offer ready cures for cancer and other diseases, THEN that paradigm should be adopted. Right now, the matter is strictly academic since to the best of my knowledge, no such new paradigm exists.

I agree, except that nature versus nurture is in no way a new paradigm. Examples of paradigms that revolutionized science are adopting evolutionary approaches in biology, and the replacement of Newtonian with Einsteinian physics.

Nature versus nurture isn't a new paradigm. It's the old paradigm that is about to be replaced by epigenetics. It isn't as big a shift as the ones brought in by Darwin and Einstein, but a shift nonetheless.

Please explain.

The old paradigm in biology is nature versus nurture, genes versus environment. This old paradigm says that a phenomenon is caused by environment or by genes. The emerging field of epigenetics says that environment can cause genes to switch on or off. The change from genes or enviroment to genes interacting with enviroment is small compared to the change brought by evolutionary theory, but it is a new way of looking at biological phenomena.