Renge to Naruto! - Vol. 6 Ch. 42 - Extra Spicy!

[BREAD123]

but unless it can get cross-connected appropriately then it's just as bad as a shallow knowledge pool that exists only on surface level

Lol
Lmao

There is no useless research as long as it's something new. Being application oriented is just engineer-brained and only contributes to the commodification of science that someone mentioned above.

You would have called Legendre polynomials useless for being hyper-specialized within newtonian physics until they found a place in basically every field of physics decades later.

 

[TestAddress]

Having superficial knowledge has never been and will never be enough in today's research. The 'hobby' researchers of old where at the frontier of the science of their day, and so their topics also seemed hyper-specialized back then. Super massive stars were it's own niche back then. Today it's a broad topic that even grad students in astrophysics are expected to know a lot about.
A graduate student should know at least a few questions that lie at the frontier of their topic, and our MC here doesn't. Research has always been a field where you need to have an obsession to contribute meaningfully, just 'liking' it isn't enough.

True, thus exams. He passed the exam proving he had broad knowledge.

 

[Amariithynar]

Lol
Lmao

There is no useless research as long as it's something new. Being application oriented is just engineer-brained and only contributes to the commodification of science that someone mentioned above.

You would have called Legendre polynomials useless for being hyper-specialized within newtonian physics until they found a place in basically every field of physics decades later.

At least finish the line said in full when quoting me, thank you. "but unless it can get cross-connected appropriately then it's just as bad as a shallow knowledge pool that exists only on surface level and never deepens, either."

The crux of the issue that I stated is having something being so broad in scope that it doesn't have any application to other research and not being able to see how it could be applied, as well as the inverse of something to narrow in scope that no applications for that knowledge can be devised not even a question to be answered (Fermat's Theorems being examples of such questions to be answered), are equally bad outcomes.

As for Legendre polynomials- Not in the least. Certainly, I personally do not understand all their uses, but I don't need to know them to understand that they were developed from a solid basis in mathematical physics and are useful in various aspects of physics but especially spherical harmonics (though they were not known by that name at the time) which were developed shortly after by Laplace, mostly to refine further knowledge of astronomy, specifically what we now call celestial mechanics.

Hyper-specialized knowledge that has purpose is very much so welcome. In fact, Legendre polynomials and all their assorted related equations and such are the perfect example of hyper-specialization that does, in fact, cross-connect appropriately within the many interrelated disciplines of the field of physics.

 

[BREAD123]

as well as the inverse of something to narrow in scope that no applications for that knowledge can be devised not even a question to be answered (Fermat's Theorems being examples of such questions to be answered), are equally bad outcomes.

Again, being so focused on application is an engineers perspective and not a researcher's. At it's heart, research has always been about knowing more about the universe, that is all the purpose you need. Paleontology barely has any purpose if you believe otherwise. And my point with the Legendre polynomials was that years down the line, people might find it useful to answer questions in their own fields. As long as it isn't blatantly wrong (the Alzheimer's scam) any science is good science. And in some cases, we've had completely wrong theories still result in good applications lol (for example the initial hypothesis behind people using baking powder as a preworkout)

As someone who works in astrophysics, I keep getting asked what application my research could possibly have in our daily life, and it always pisses me off.

I was trying to find this comic that one of my old professors had stuck on the door to his office that goes like 'Admin: why should we fund this experiment?
What you have to say: because it'll help constrain xxx value to be used in yyy
What you want to say: BECAUSE IT'S FUCKING COOL!'
Can't find it so just pretend I linked it here :/

P.S. I'd have added string theory and QFT in higher dimensions or whatever that thing is called among blatantly wrong science but I didn't study it enough to know its issues

 

[Amariithynar]

I keep getting asked what application my research could possibly have in our daily life

That's wrong of them too, though. Something doesn't need to be useful in daily, mundane life; it just needs to have some use within its own or another discipline that other researchers, hyper-specialized or generalist, can recognize. That's why I said your use of the Legendre polynomials are a perfect example of hyper-specialization knowledge, because they're something that no one needs to know for their mundane lives, but it has plenty of use within the field of mathematical physics that it was devised for.

 

[TestAddress]

Paleontologist actually chucked bones and called it "animal". This is why they got reduced funding.

They can be called hacks or education's con artists.

 

[dogmeister238]

Having superficial knowledge has never been and will never be enough in today's research. The 'hobby' researchers of old where at the frontier of the science of their day, and so their topics also seemed hyper-specialized back then. Super massive stars were it's own niche back then. Today it's a broad topic that even grad students in astrophysics are expected to know a lot about.
A graduate student should know at least a few questions that lie at the frontier of their topic, and our MC here doesn't. Research has always been a field where you need to have an obsession to contribute meaningfully, just 'liking' it isn't enough.

It goes beyond being a superficial hobbyist for sure, but it’s also not like that rigid imo. When I entered grad school, I technically did have a research topic and statement, but that was mainly for applications. For me, I didn’t find having a fully mapped out research question and proposal to be that important to your success in grad school. It’s better to be flexible but passionate about the underlying work.

That’s why I dislike how the professor criticized him for liking the idea of being a researcher rather than wanting to make a contribution. Yes, academia does pressure you to make contributions, but ultimately, your passion for actually doing research is more important than your ambition to push the frontiers of your field (although obviously it’s good to have both).

Like most people’s dissertations are not going to shake the world; if you want to stay motivated, it’s going to be with your passion and interest in seeing your research through, not in your ambition to make it succeed.

 

[dogmeister238]

That's wrong of them too, though. Something doesn't need to be useful in daily, mundane life; it just needs to have some use within its own or another discipline that other researchers, hyper-specialized or generalist, can recognize. That's why I said your use of the Legendre polynomials are a perfect example of hyper-specialization knowledge, because they're something that no one needs to know for their mundane lives, but it has plenty of use within the field of mathematical physics that it was devised for.

You can generally link that to an application though. Sure, people themselves aren’t directly using Legendre polynomials in their everyday lives, but CT scans are, and CT scans are important to healthcare and people, so they do have an application and impact on everyday people. In other words, whether research has application is irrelevant to how much you need to know about it in mundane life. You don’t have to understand and compute Navier-Stokes equations for it to have a big impact on your life.

In contrast, it’s a lot harder to justify research into dark matter (although it’s still a relatively popular field in astrophysics from what I’ve heard). It’s literally something we can’t observe or interact with through conventional means, so it’s pretty hard to find an immediate application for it. I think that’s a better example of something without an application.

Of course, my opinion on all of this is that people have the cause and effect reversed. You don’t need an application to justify research. Instead, research opens the way to new technology and applications. Of course a lot of novel research doesn’t have immediate application; if we know nothing about the topic, how can we have an idea for the technology that comes from it? You have to first research and understand the topic to then start having ideas for applications.

 

[Amariithynar]

You can generally link that to an application though. Sure, people themselves aren’t directly using Legendre polynomials in their everyday lives, but CT scans are, and CT scans are important to healthcare and people, so they do have an application and impact on everyday people. In other words, whether research has application is irrelevant to how much you need to know about it in mundane life. You don’t have to understand and compute Navier-Stokes equations for it to have a big impact on your life.

In contrast, it’s a lot harder to justify research into dark matter (although it’s still a relatively popular field in astrophysics from what I’ve heard). It’s literally something we can’t observe or interact with through conventional means, so it’s pretty hard to find an immediate application for it. I think that’s a better example of something without an application.

Of course, my opinion on all of this is that people have the cause and effect reversed. You don’t need an application to justify research. Instead, research opens the way to new technology and applications. Of course a lot of novel research doesn’t have immediate application; if we know nothing about the topic, how can we have an idea for the technology that comes from it? You have to first research and understand the topic to then start having ideas for applications.

I'd like to point you to earlier posts made in the discussion where I do just that, such as this one.

At least finish the line said in full when quoting me, thank you. "but unless it can get cross-connected appropriately then it's just as bad as a shallow knowledge pool that exists only on surface level and never deepens, either."

The crux of the issue that I stated is having something being so broad in scope that it doesn't have any application to other research and not being able to see how it could be applied, as well as the inverse of something to narrow in scope that no applications for that knowledge can be devised not even a question to be answered (Fermat's Theorems being examples of such questions to be answered), are equally bad outcomes.

As for Legendre polynomials- Not in the least. Certainly, I personally do not understand all their uses, but I don't need to know them to understand that they were developed from a solid basis in mathematical physics and are useful in various aspects of physics but especially spherical harmonics (though they were not known by that name at the time) which were developed shortly after by Laplace, mostly to refine further knowledge of astronomy, specifically what we now call celestial mechanics.

Hyper-specialized knowledge that has purpose is very much so welcome. In fact, Legendre polynomials and all their assorted related equations and such are the perfect example of hyper-specialization that does, in fact, cross-connect appropriately within the many interrelated disciplines of the field of physics.