>Research scientists with a Masters degree or PhD can look

because they're not researching anything profitable

Go research for a pharmaceutical company if you want money. Basic research on extremely specific topics isn't profitable

>Le our institution couldn't find the right sponsor meme again

>>8780380
>>8780402
What're the most profitable fields of research?

>>8780413
I'm currently in first year, planning to go into pharmacology and eventually research for a pharma company. Reasons: More money than other research positions, and my father also did it so he taught me a lot when I was young, cultivating my interest.

>>8780380
Research is never profitable your moron. That's why you never see private companies doing it and it's all funded by grants and NSF.

We need to research physics, chemistry, and hard sciences not which flavoring of coca cola is more addictive and might increase sales.

>>8780419
Oh, hi. How's it going Shkreli?

File: 1476273623028.jpg (216KB, 605x763px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 605x763px

>>8780422
>Research is never profitable your moron
>not which flavoring of coca cola is more addictive and might increase sales.

>Research is never profitable
>increase sales
dumb brainlet just contradicted himself

try again

>>8780419
Am I fucked doing industrial chemistry? Will I die from toxin exposure sooner than most?

File: 1488836837530.jpg (851KB, 1600x1600px) Image search: [Google]

851KB, 1600x1600px

>>8780431
what does the brainlet's ethics and morals have to do with the profitability of certain forms of research?

>>8780426
I think he was making an ethical/moral argument.

File: 3vYLQmm.png (323KB, 3200x2400px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 3200x2400px

>>8780426
I guess that really depends on what you call profitable. The "free market" system abhors scientific and technological progress since it disrupts markets. It prefers stagnation, planned obsolescence, and steady markets.

For example, if you tell people that the coal industry has been lobbying against energy research for decades and they think it's a retarded conspiracy theory.

>>8780425
Honestly that's a great compliment to me, as I love Martin Shkreli. He's a very intelligent person, yet still has the fun-loving side to him, which is my ultimate goal.

>>8780433
Not him, so I wouldn't know.

Though, I'd think his standpoint would be something along the lines of a brain-drain, away from 'ethically sound' research, to the 'corrupt' corporate research.

Que? I don't know.

>>8780433
I wasn't really making any moral argument.

I was just stating that progress and profit are diametrically opposed to each other.

I have a MSc in chemistry, boy I would kill to make 30k a year

>>8780437
You should read American Psycho some time.

>>8780376
>another high schooler falls for the STEM money meme

Should've gone to business or trade school if you want fat stacks.

>>8780436
>I guess that really depends on what you call profitable.
lets go with the definition of profitable that people have always used, ok brainlet?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/profitable
>affording profits : yielding advantageous returns or results

>The "free market" system abhors scientific and technological progress since it disrupts markets. It prefers stagnation, planned obsolescence, and steady markets.
So you're saying scientific progress disrupts markets and allows for people to profit? hmm... you're just further contradicting yourself here brainlet

>For example, if you tell people that the coal industry has been lobbying against energy research for decades and they think it's a retarded conspiracy theory.
the profitability of research does not depend on external conspiracy theories brainlet

>>8780449
Scientific and technological progress destroys markets you "brainlet."

That's why you don't see shoe cobblers and farriers anymore. It's always why more and more jobs are automated.

>>8780449
>Offers no counter-arguments, just counter-assertions.
>Nor any proof, above a dictionary definition that would be subject to a measure of semantic drift.
>Calls other people brainlets.
Mhm, really gets those neurons firing.

I think you're the brainlet, buddy. :)

>>8780451
>Scientific and technological progress destroys markets you "brainlet."
do you expect everyone on the planet to profit off every piece of scientific research brainlet?

>It's always why more and more jobs are automated.
do you think no one makes money off automation?

>>8780452
i don't need to offer counter-arguments when the other posting continually offers more and more instances of people making money off of research, whether it be by disrupting markets, automation, or coca cola research

File: plsdontbaitme.png (18KB, 984x211px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 984x211px

Why is the internet baiting me :((((

>>8780454
So, you're saying profitability is subjective, not objective?

So, which standpoint are you arguing from?

File: 1482386614974.jpg (534KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

534KB, 1920x1200px

>>8780461
>So, you're saying profitability is subjective, not objective?
where did i say that? i didn't use either of those words

>>8780454
>do you expect everyone on the planet to profit off every piece of scientific research brainlet?
No, that is exactly why I said that NSF has to fund all real science research, and private companies only do frivolous marketing research. In the long term, we need the hard scientific research to make progress for society.

>do you think no one makes money off automation?
Are you saying destroying all your consumer's income is good for business? People not being able to afford rent is why the housing market crashes, and soon the auto market is going to crash again.

There is no chance of you denying that this model of wealth accumulation is destructive toward society, and that it is the reason we are not doing more hard science.

>>8780460
I'd like to make 400k-500k though, how do I do this?

Don't say medicine, as my Asperger's gives me an awful bedside manner and House is a meme.

>>8780464
You do know that you don't have to use the words to imply their semantical usage, right? When will STEM guys learn English?

>do you expect everyone on the planet to profit off every piece of scientific research brainlet?
Profit for everyone or for an 'entity' would be objective. As only a certain person, or group of persons profits it is subjective.

>>8780464
You are arguing from the point that gaining more scientific knowledge and technological progress does not matter, and that profit is more important.

File: koala65.jpg (70KB, 600x928px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 600x928px

>>8780465
>No, that is exactly why I said that NSF has to fund all real science research, and private companies only do frivolous marketing research. In the long term, we need the hard scientific research to make progress for society.
this is meaningless

>Are you saying destroying all your consumer's income is good for business? People not being able to afford rent is why the housing market crashes, and soon the auto market is going to crash again.
where did i say anything about destroying all your consumer's income? the small number of people who lose their jobs from automation are not your entire consumer base...

>>8780470
>Profit for everyone or for an 'entity' would be objective. As only a certain person, or group of persons profits it is subjective.
you've just outlined an objective form and a subjective form of profitability and i don't deny the existence of either of them (and never did), so this still has nothing to do with what i was saying

>>8780472
>You are arguing from the point that gaining more scientific knowledge and technological progress does not matter, and that profit is more important.
again i never made this point, feel free to try to find a post where i did though

>>8780481
>this is meaningless
Your responses are meaningless.

>again i never made this point, feel free to try to find a post where i did though

>>8780426

There. You completely ignored my point.

Hard science research yields no immediate profit, and only leads to progress in the long term, but it is still needed. You just keep ignoring that fact.

If it was profitable for people to do real research, there would be tons of private research companies. The truth is that it is high risk and low reward, and free market ideals don't like new technologies destroying profitable markets.

File: 1479810159992.jpg (139KB, 980x653px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 980x653px

>>8780486
in the post you quoted i made no reference to scientific knowledge or technological progress, i only pointed out that you contradicted yourself in saying research is 'never profitable' and then immediately saying coca cola research increases sales

try again

>>8780490
Nice mental gymnastics.

Again, I am pointing out the fact that you ignored my point on progress vs profit. Your response to my comment was your statement about that topic.

File: 1457746038083.jpg (42KB, 604x420px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 604x420px

>>8780500
there's no 'mental gymnastics' going on brainlet, i'm surprised this is so difficult for you to comprehend

just because you think you deserve to be a welfare queen doing unprofitable research doesn't mean others aren't doing valuable research (and verifiably valuable, since people will pay for it)

>>8780504
So you are opposed to all NSF and NIH research?

File: 1480975044531.jpg (126KB, 400x266px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 400x266px

>>8780507
yes that's exactly the conclusion you should derive from that post...

did you brainlets never pass english class in high school? where did reading comprehension go so wrong...

i'm not opposed to any research, i don't know where you keep getting these fantasies from

>>8780511
I just wanted to be sure of how retarded you are.

File: 1480988452011.png (1MB, 580x632px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 580x632px

>>8780512
well have you come to a conclusion?

i'm still wondering where you're getting these delusions about me somehow being 'anti-research' in some way, it's truly baffling that this is a difficult train of thought for you to follow

>>8780514

>>8780507
>>8780511
Do you have no short term memory?

I want to go into research in Genetics and ecology. How burger flipper tier is it?

>>8780376
just curious, what is your source?

here's a list of people i personally know with starting offers
- BS in EE -> 80k starting w/ Texas Instruments
- masters in ME -> 85k starting w/ Toyota
- masters in EE -> 90k starting w/ Boeing
- Ph.D in EE -> 145k starting w/ NVIDIA
- Ph.D in CS -> 170k starting w/ Google

how is it that i personally know this list of people when STEM is such a worthless meme, do I just live among a sea of extreme outliers?

File: 1488795049423.jpg (18KB, 300x412px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x412px

>>8780520
do you have no sarcasm detector brainlet?

did you not see that the post ended with 'i'm not opposed to any research' brainlet?

>>8780526
I only have a Bachelor's in CS and I had multiple offers, all $130k+ total compensation

4chan hates CS and EE, and anything not skewed towards the Science part of STEM

>>8780535
CS will always find you jobs and money (unless you want to make vidya kek) but it also means you are a code monkey who might kill yourself at 40.

>>8780526
What is with americas crazy starting salaries.
Here in the uk even the top tier starting jobs for grads start at £60k at most, ie investment banking.

File: dugin.jpg (122KB, 618x442px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 618x442px

>>8780543
'europoor' is a popular meme for a reason

>>8780546
Is it down to things like rent and insurance+crazy expensive schooling? I heard you all work crazy 80+ hour weeks which I guess makes your compensation fair.
In the uk we work 9 - 5 max

>>8780535
>total compensation
good point, those starting offers I gave were all just pure salary, didn't even include the benefits packages.

>>8780559
a lot of it does go to rent actually, especially if the job is located in southern california

>>8780559
its a combination of all those things. cost of living anywhere decent is much higher than the UK.

also, US universities are top notch. companies are getting what they pay for when they hire a US engineer. the 80+ hours a week thing is a bit of an exaggeration, its closer to 60. the US is also very large, and travel is expected. spending 100+ days a year living in a hotel is part of the job description for many STEM positions.

>>8780542
No, code monkey is what you are when you don't have a degree. That's me right now, stitching together tedious webapps for stupidly little money. Going to start a distance learning degree course this Oct.

>>8780533
Subjectivity matters, because we're attempting to define profit.

As in, is this profit objective, or subjective?

>>8780526
>literally 1in 100 PhD Students
cute

>>8780504
>unprofitable research
Kill yourself brainlet

>>8780526
You probably go to a real school and not a cow college in bumfuck nowhere, which is where the majority of PhD graduates come from.

File: 1489575378468.jpg (27KB, 555x960px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 555x960px

>>8780597
>Subjectivity matters, because we're attempting to define profit.
the definition of profit is irrelevant at this point, and i've already posted it earlier in this thread anyway brainlet

>As in, is this profit objective, or subjective?
which ever profit you feel like working for, but if you choose one over the other don't complain about it later

>>8780601
not an arguement

>>8780602
this.

the glut of STEM degree holders are coming from D tier schools and degree mills like Devry and Phoenix """"University""""

>>8780546
What're you on about, Europe and Britain certainly aren't poor.

Our salaries are just lower, because things like healthcare aren't mafia-esque extortion in your fatherland(s).

>>8780604
Stop watching so much Memeyneux, he isn't and never will be a philosopher, the moron can hardly hold his own (or his temper) in the most simple of debates.

Apparently nor can you with endless ad hom.

Anyway, the reason it matters is because saying it does make profit, because it benefits a few (subjective).

Whilst that is profit, I think anon meant the sort of profit that profits humanity as a whole (objective).

In other words, it would make your entire argument invalid.

>>8780604
define profitable research brainlet

the problem is your argument can't exist

>>8780580
>US universities are top notch
UK universities rank about the same and currently Cambridge has topped both UK and US universities in the current tables.

File: 1481469783278.jpg (234KB, 634x875px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 634x875px

>>8780611
>Apparently nor can you with endless ad hom.
please point out an ad hom i made brainlet, i'd love to see you try and make such an argument

you've just trapped yourself into your own fallacy fallacy

>In other words, it would make your entire argument invalid.
how so? there are different groups who can profit, i've already agreed with that earlier, i don't see why you keep repeating this nonsense. all i'm saying is if you choose one form of profit over the other, you don't get to complain about it later on

>>8780614
the definition of profitable has already been posted in this thread, there's no need to repost it, and i'm sure you already know the definition of research

try again

>>8780633
Do you really suffer from short term memory as a previous anon stated?

You've gone from attacking peoples reading comprehension to using several pejoratives, such as 'brainlet'.

That is the defintion of a personal attack, rather than attacking the argument.

>How so?
Because you would be arguing about two different concepts of profit and therefore not the same 'definition'.

As, I'm sure you might be aware, words can have several different (and sometimes drastically different) meanings and invoke different concepts.

>>8780633
you can't define profitable research in a project based timeline; you can't provide correlation

>>8780633
>profit
you're so far beyond understanding product cycles, and the value of basic research, that you shouldn't even be here

you should be reading

>>8780622
i'm speaking broadly. US universities specialize better than the UK, and industry hunts and picks from schools based on the specific skillset.

for example, Purdue and Texas A&M are probably the best in the world for turbomachinery, UMich is known for its nuclear and math programs. Colorado School of Mines for its geology and petroleum engineering, etc.

from my understanding the UK doesn't have that kind of specialization in its universities.

File: 1468801646300.jpg (394KB, 634x875px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 634x875px

>>8780644
>You've gone from attacking peoples reading comprehension to using several pejoratives, such as 'brainlet'.
this is not an ad hom

>That is the defintion of a personal attack, rather than attacking the argument.
it's only an ad hom if i don't address the argument separately, but i did, so it's not an ad hom

try again, and go brush up on your fallacies

>Because you would be arguing about two different concepts of profit and therefore not the same 'definition'.
wrong again brainlet, i'm not arguing about 'different concepts' of profit and never have been. the definition is still valid

the whole point of this is that research which profits mankind as a whole is not identical to the research which generates revenue. if there was only 'one single concept' of profit there wouldn't even be a debate to begin with

>>8780646
>you can't define profitable research in a project based timeline; you can't provide correlation
i already have given a definition, so stop making such meaningless statements

>>8780649
>you're so far beyond understanding product cycles, and the value of basic research, that you shouldn't even be here
>you should be reading
speak for yourself. go open up a book on economics, literally any of them with the word 'introductory' in front should suit you

>>8780659
point to a project defined as PhD or post-doc level and provide the profitability assessment of that research?

are you trying to say research that leads to patents assessed as profitable?

still not possible

>>8780654
Somewhat, you tend to get broader specialisations, either subject schools, or subject subschools, rather than their individual modular fields.

>>8780659
>this is not an ad hom
It really is...

>it's only an ad hom if i don't address the argument separately, but i did, so it's not an ad hom
Considering it didn't actually address the topic and you were just insulting people, yes, yes it is.

So, your argument is:
>I redefine all (and differing) concepts of profit to fit my definition of profit to fit my ad hoc argument.
Mhm, dayum, if it only worked like that.

It doesn't.

Definitions exist as per the majority, you aren't a majority.

>>8780659
define particular tenants that make basic research that pointless

File: 1487308567421.jpg (99KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 640x640px

>>8780666
>point to a project defined as PhD or post-doc level and provide the profitability assessment of that research?
the profitability assessment is done by the supervisor providing funding

wow that was hard

>are you trying to say research that leads to patents assessed as profitable?
fix your grammar, try again

>>8780667
>It really is...
no it's not, an ad hom is a personal attack IN PLACE of an argument.

>>8780673
>define particular tenants that make basic research that pointless
why are you bringing up pointlessness now? we're talking about profitability here.

>>8780673
if you can't define pointless or unprofitable research then you won't be able to (un)attribute profit to any particular sequence of steps

>>8780676
Which you did actually use, more than once.
>Example: >>8780533

Methinks the moron gorilla posts too much, without fact checking.

>>8780676
>muh funding proposal is a real life economic valuation
>brainlets defend nonsense generalizations

File: 14873085674212.jpg (107KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 640x640px

>>8780677
>if you can't define pointless or unprofitable research then you won't be able to (un)attribute profit to any particular sequence of steps
again, i don't care about pointlessness, we're talking about profitability, and the definition of profitable has already been provided, so anything not satisfying profitable is obviously unprofitable.

>>8780680
in that post i am replying to 'do you have a short term memory?'
do you see an argument there? 'do you have a short term memory?' is not an argument by any stretch of the imagination

try again.

>>8780682
this funding proposal is something IN REALITY which has been agreed to by multiple parties, so it's much more 'real life' then whatever alternative you're proposing

>30-45k for PhD research

Maybe if you are in the U.K.

>blah blah I want to make 300K+ with a research degree (PhD)

Are there any other grad students here? Honestly. One of the first things you realize when you get to grad school is no one is here to become rich. Then you see all the depressed 4th and 5th year students realizing that there is probably no job waiting for them after. Then you hear undergrads flapping their gums about
>YEAH BRO I CAN TOTALLY MAKE 200K STARTING ALL I GOTTA DO IS GRAD SCHOOL ITS SO SIMPLE!

save yourself from the delusion. Seriously, if you want to look educated on this subject, the first step is not to remain ignorant.

>>8780687
>8780687
if you can't attribute the success of a research project independently of each other ( sequential steps ) then you can't assess profitability independently of each other

>funding proposal agree upon by multiple parties
it is not an economic evaluation, it is one public agency justifying payment to another

is is independent, done by experts in the field ( corps who make money off that particular research ), how many steps away from profit is it, what is the risk evaluation profile for 'deadend' research or other failure?

anything you have to say is nonsense based on really myopic stupidity

>>8780376
Eh, from a personal point of view, I can tell you why I chose STEM/research:

1) Lifestyle
There's no 8:30 punchcard deadline. No-one gives a shit if I arrive at 10 (or lunchtime) as long as I get my work done. I get to travel and live abroad in various countries, and the community that surrounds research is not only very accepting of foreigners, but enjoys having them around.

2) No corporate bs
While having to deal with the entire grant/funding horseshit, I definitely prefer it to the corporate BS and related entities. I don't have to file monthly reports, no business partners to cater to. Research partnerships are more honest than business partnerships, and I dig that.

3) The research itself
I can pick research topics on my own, based on personal interest - I don't have to compromise a lot because the research isn't profitable. While obviously I have to pick 'hot topics' and have to follow the money in a way, I don't have work on toothpaste commercials just because it's the most profitable thing at the moment.

I did have some exposure to the corporate world, so my choice and opinions aren't just pulled out of my ass. Who knows, I might get sick of academia at some point and come crawling back where the money is, but for now I'm alright here..

>>8780687
>i don't care about pointlessness
You can't pick and choose your axioms to fit your argument, that IS ad hoc.

>Ad hom
>Example: >>8780511
No argument detected, his point as (to him) a valid expression of the argument topic.

>this funding proposal is something IN REALITY which has been agreed to by multiple parties, so it's much more 'real life' then whatever alternative you're proposing
>Naivety The Post, in threads March 26!

>>8780689
>realizing that there is probably no job waiting for them after

Depends. I know plenty of smart Astrophysics grad students here in the UK, but they know they have little chance to get a nice post-doc within 2 years of graduating.

Meanwhile us in the Environmental and Earth sciences get postdoc/job offers halfway through our PhD. I've got 2 years to go, and have been approached by 3 different groups (that our team collaborates with) whether I'm interested in working for them after my PhD is done.
Just pick the right field, mate.

>>8780715
>pick the right field
you mean guess - just like the definition of profitability

File: 1487942588514.jpg (39KB, 443x332px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 443x332px

>>8780697
>if you can't attribute the success of a research project independently of each other ( sequential steps ) then you can't assess profitability independently of each other
ok, now what's your point?

>it is not an economic evaluation, it is one public agency justifying payment to another
everything is economics

>is is independent, done by experts in the field ( corps who make money off that particular research ), how many steps away from profit is it, what is the risk evaluation profile for 'deadend' research or other failure?
not all research involves corporations, why do you keep bringing in these ridiculous notions into your reasoning?

>anything you have to say is nonsense based on really myopic stupidity
thanks for the laugh..

>>8780701
>You can't pick and choose your axioms to fit your argument, that IS ad hoc.
i'm not 'picking and choosing' axioms moron, this discussion has never been about 'pointlessness' until it was randomly brought up as a strawman

>No argument detected, his point as (to him) a valid expression of the argument topic.
the example you posted is me replying to:
>So you are opposed to all NSF and NIH research?
while this is also not an arguement, my reply included the direct response 'i'm not opposed to any research'.

you don't get to yell AD HOM AD AHOM just because the word brainlet is also thrown in there.

just so you can freshen up, here's a quick run down on ad hominem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

>Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

you'll notice the keyword 'rather' thrown in there

>>8780426
i think he was talking about SCIENTIFIC research

The STEM graduates who earn good money are in finance or engineering.

>>8780733
>you mean guess

Not really. A chat with postdocs or other senior researcher will very quickly tell you which fields of research offer a good chance of progression and job security.

Hint: black hole physics isn't one of them

File: 14873085674213.jpg (107KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 640x640px

>>8780740
what is unscientific about coca cola's research?

>>8780736
you can't define profitable research
holy shit you are daft, brainlet

>>8780736
I give up, you're ad homing and then giving the defintion (which fits many of previous comments) and yet you cannot see your own failings.

You're either blind, or incredibly stupid.

I'm out.

>>8780715
i hope you realize that post docs aren't desirable to anyone who isn't either retarded or absolutely fanatical about their work.

>>8780743
Yet. :^)

>>8780748
You underestimate the number of grad students who don't want to go work in the 'real world'.

File: 1485107652893.jpg (110KB, 771x1037px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 771x1037px

>>8780746
you can control+F for the definition of profitable which is already in this thread, and then apply that adjective to research. i'm not going to reconstruct the english language for you

>>8780747
>I give up, you're ad homing and then giving the defintion (which fits many of previous comments) and yet you cannot see your own failings.
you've pointed out two comments where i allegedly ad hom'd, and i refuted both, and you have no further arguement.

try again

>>8780753
yeah, i'm sure that working more hours for half the pay is so much more desirable. it's safe to file them under the retarded category.

>>8780743
if u enter into a baby level field where you can predict how long your PhD will take sure, you might be able to assess how much meme-tier grant money (cough env sci) is coming in the next 5 year plan from the gov

>>8780754
there was no definition that could ever be assessed

File: 1469097900617.gif (688KB, 664x714px) Image search: [Google]

688KB, 664x714px

>>8780754
Expect you didn't.

And are still failing too, aside from in your own mind.

To anyone else reading your nonsense, they understand and can comprehend your numerous fallacies (hence their continued assault upon you).

I'm SORRY you cannot, clearly we or previous teachers have failed you in some aspect.

Seek to better yourself, not aim vitriolic 'logical' assertions at people for simply challenging your preconceived, contrived and flagrantly erroneous conceptualisation of the world around you and its many intricate concepts and social contracts.

TL;DR: You're a blockhead, wannabe Stefan.

>>8780756
>i'm sure that working more hours for half the pay is so much more desirable
Oh please. The corporate world will chew and spit you out much quicker than academia ever could. If you're a bit of a lazy fuck, you can still be in a cozy position in universities. Business doesn't tend to tolerate that.

>>8780757
>baby level field
Pays the bills, is interesting enough, transferrable skills if it all goes to shit and you have to churn market analysis data for Amazon for the rest of your life. Could be worse.

>>8780760
>*except

>>8780763
yeah, glorious academia where you are forced to recruit women and """minorities""" (read: shitskins) to get grant funding.

i'll take my chances in the corporate world, thanks.

File: 1488989859320.png (4MB, 3416x3405px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3416x3405px

>>8780758
look fella, i've already given a definition, if you want another one to assess, feel free to provide an alternative, otherwise stop asking me to do what i've already done

>>8780760
>Expect you didn't.
i did actually, twice. your first example of my (alleged) ad hom was in response to a non-arguement. ad hom requires an arguement to be refuted, so this was not an ad hom.

and the second example of my (alleged) ad hom was in response to an arguement which i refuted and threw on a brainlet afterwards, which is not an ad hom since the arguement was refuted independently of the brainlet.

>To anyone else reading your nonsense, they understand and can comprehend your numerous fallacies (hence their continued assault upon you).
once again you've trapped yourself into the fallacy fallacy

>>8780768
>i'll take my chances in the corporate world, thanks.

Well, good luck. I got tired of the BS very quickly - others might be more capable of dealing with empty talk and shitting all over customers.

>>8780770
you can't use the definition to assess any real-life scenario

your entire argument is a nonsequitor

>>8780768
Fair warning, you'll likely be redirected to /pol/ for that comment.

/Sci/ is a leftist haven.

>>8780770
>look fella
Nebulous jibbering isn't considered rigorous enough to constitue a 'definition' from it.

>i did actually
>Subjective Perception The Post, in threads March 26!

>once again you've trapped yourself into the fallacy fallacy
What? How about you do something more useful and go and nurse your ego's phallus(cy)?
<^ This was a rhetorical question, by the way, just incase your reading comprehension fails you again, brainlet.

>>8780740
Are you saying private companies don't do r&d

>>8780466
Law.

>>8780778
All of their 'rigorous' (((consumer research))). :^)

>>8780780
Don't meme me, I don't want to be trapped in corporate law, please.

I'd rather die.

>>8780774
>you can't use the definition to assess any real-life scenario
more meaninglessness.

it's the definition currently used to assess every real-life scenario in existence.

try again.

>>8780777
>Nebulous jibbering isn't considered rigorous enough to constitue a 'definition' from it.
'look fella' was not a proposed definition.

>What?
http://fallacyfiles.org/fallfall.html

>How about you do something more useful and go and nurse your ego's phallus(cy)?
it's sunday, thankfully with all my research funding i can do whatever i want on my day off

I'm starting my master's in applied math and computing this fall. job outlook is good, especially in California Bay area (where i live).

src:
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/math/mobile/mathematicians.htm

>>8780781
It's research for better consumer products yes, but so what?

>>8780783
>'look fella' was not a proposed definition.
I was using a short reference to reference the whole line, pedantic Dumbo. >:^D

>http://fallacyfiles.org/fallfall.html
To reiterate: Subjective Perception The Post, in threads March 26!

>it's sunday, thankfully with all my research funding i can do whatever i want on my day off
>I Reply To Rhetorical Questions The Post, in threads March 26th!

>>8780789
Yes, but it utilises (((marketing))) and (((psychology))).

Are they sound?

>>8780783
>definition is meaningless
>criticism of meaningless definition is meaningless
wow we nihilist now

> it is being used
no, it isn't

>>8780807
And as we all know, nihilism is laziness inconceptulate:
>https://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/4494/

>>8780807
>no, it isn't
then what is?

>>8780812
That's where the difference in objective profit and subjective profit comes in, that being they are two different concepts and two different definitions of their parent term 'profit'.

Woo! Do you understand it yet, fucko?

>>8780806
repeating the date over and over again does not lend any credence to your non-arguemenet

try again, maybe this time without crafting a post completely devoid of reason

>>8780816
>That's where the difference in objective profit and subjective profit comes in, that being they are two different concepts and two different definitions of their parent term 'profit'.
>their parent term 'profit'.

Woo! You've accepted the existence of the parent term 'profit'! Do you understand it yet, fucko?

>>8780812
bullshitting and lies

>>8780818
I'm fairly sure it works both ways, that being take your own advice and:
>try again, maybe this time without crafting a post completely devoid of reason
Are we getting through to your thick corpus callosum yet?

>>8780819
We were talking about OBJECTIVE PROFIT, NOT SUBJECTIVE. You're talking about SUBJECTIVE PROFIT, NOT OBJECTIVE PROFIT.

Woo! You've started to understand the difference! Do you understand the debate topic yet, fucko?

I get to do what I enjoy for a living and I have a tremendous amount of freedom over my day to day schedule and long term research focuses. The salary is small but livable, and that's all I really need.

>>8780823
>Are we getting through to your thick corpus callosum yet?
if you give me an arguement to refute i'll certainly refute it

all you've done so far is provide empty posts.

>We were talking about OBJECTIVE PROFIT, NOT SUBJECTIVE. You're talking about SUBJECTIVE PROFIT, NOT OBJECTIVE PROFIT.
these don't exist in vacuums brainlet, there is overlap.

try again.

>>8780829
At what point is subjective profit, objective profit and vice versa?

Why don't we try and apply reductio ad absurdum or perhaps reductio ad simplicissimam?

We'll go for a mixture of Aristotelian logic and Socratic dialogue:
>You: There are some brown cats, there are also some black cats.
>Me: All brown cats are brown.
>You: No, because there are black cats!
>Me: Yes, but we're talking about brown cats, that is the topic.
>You: BRAINLET! REEEEEE!
Q.E.D

>>8780840
sigh, you brainlets just don't get it...

there is profit which is both subjective and objective, but your feeble mind seems to fragmeneted to perceive something being more than one thing at a time...

i can see why you're here complaining about not receiving enough funding, i wouldn't fund you either.

>>8780850
you literally can't see into the future, so any argument you put forth about the fruits of basic research is invalid

what is serendipity

what are complex systems

>>8780376

People autistic enough to earn these degrees and pursue research are also autistic enough to work for shit pay.

The same reason anyone has ever been a public school teacher; either they were incompetent or they liked it. Seeing as how these people have post-grad degrees, we'll say they like the job.

>>8780857
>you literally can't see into the future, so any argument you put forth about the fruits of basic research is invalid
wrong

do you not trust the recipes in recipe books because you can't 'see into the future'? any argument you put forth about the fruits of basic recipes is invalid.

brainlet.

>>8780866
wow you're insane, or you have no basis in academia

either way, go read more of the papers that get funded under "basic research grants"

>>8780866
genuinely hilarious anecdote

I'm going to share this whenever i get into the public education debate, so i can totally derail the conversation and get a few disgusted faces

you should be begging scientists to educate you, but instead you disparage

>>8780876
>wow you're insane, or you have no basis in academia
i'm obviously more sane than you, and likely have more dgrees than you.

>either way, go read more of the papers that get funded under "basic research grants"
why?

once again, if you willingly decide to do research on a topic that has little to no short-term profitability, you don't get to complain later on that you deserve more money

>>8780850
Either they benefit a finite amount, or they benefit everyone.

For instance, if it benefited 7,493,483,400 (the current world population when I checked), then it would be objective, benefiting everyone.

It is benefited 7,493,483,399, then it would be subjective, as in those 7,493,483,399 subjects, excluding the 1 person who did not benefit.

Therefore, it is either objective, or subjective.

Which is it?

As we are arguing about the total benefit for all of humanity of said research, not the few corporations, or their workers.

>>8780884
You might have more dgrees, but I seriously doubt you have more degrees. :^)

>>8780890
>Either they benefit a finite amount, or they benefit everyone.
are there infinitely many people now? when did that happen brainlet

out of morbid curioussity, what are some examples of objective research in your mind?

>>8780898
Cancer research, without corporate or governmental blockage, it would benefit everyone. And would be 'objective profit'.

Also, fucko, stop being pedantic for the sake of it. As it would benefit those that came before it and those that came after it (still making it objective).

>>8780903
>Cancer research, without corporate or governmental blockage, it would benefit everyone. And would be 'objective profit'.
wouldn't a cure for a cancer be detrimental to those researchers profiting off researching cancer treatments since it would put them out of work?

>Also, fucko, stop being pedantic for the sake of it. As it would benefit those that came before it and those that came after it (still making it objective).
how does research benefit people in the past? are researchers time travelers now?

>>8780910
Why is everything about money with you?

Sorry, slight misuse of terms. I meant to say: "concurrently and future".

>>8780884
hilarious brainlet tears; read pharma devo papers and value-based eco valuations

or just keep crying about quarters and be the miserly pos you are

you deserve the gulag

>>8780915
>Why is everything about money with you?
why is nothing about money with you?

>>8780918
Because humanity matters more, not one of its many tools.

I am a classic liberal, I understand the value of human life.

It isn't my fault if you're a sociopathic capitalistic nihilist.

>>8780918
money is speculation and you aren't willing to broadly speculate (basic research), but you are willing to cry about spending

you could be a politician! maybe polisci/eco Undergrads?

>>8780921
humanity is quite literally a spook

a meteor could crash into the earth or a black hole could tear our world apart the day after you die, and you would have wasted all your cancer research for no profit what so ever

>I am a classic liberal, I understand the value of human life.
no, you mythologize it.

>It isn't my fault if you're a sociopathic capitalistic nihilist.
you're the one pretending like money doesn't mean anything, all i'm saying is that it means _something_

>>8780922
>money is speculation and you aren't willing to broadly speculate (basic research), but you are willing to cry about spending
>money is speculation
[citation needed]

>>8780925
>what is forex
>what is MMT devaluation
holy shit it's like i'm speaking to someone who actually has no background in any discipline

bahaha

>>8780376
In biotech or big pharma, no research scientist with an MS or PhD is making $30-45k/yr.

In biomedical research, $30k/yr is around the average for PhD stipends (more in the West and Northeast, less in the Midwest and South). $45k/yr is around what academic post-docs make. Industry post-docs pay $60k-75k.

There are multiples levels of scientists, and titles and pay grades adjust accordingly. In most firms, a "research scientist" would start at associate/assistant scientist I, which is where MSes would progress after senior research associate (SRA). In small- to mid-size biotechs, SRAs top out at around $65-75k; in big pharma, I know an SRA with eight years of experience (academic and industrial) pulling down $95k/yr. So, MS scientists are at least $75k, and some are easily into the low- to mid-100s. The issue, however, is that there's a ceiling that you'll hit. Unless you get in as employee number 10 or whatever in the start-up, you won't be a group leader or director without a PhD.

Most PhDs do post-docs nowadays; it's uncommon for a PhD who wants a career in bench research to go straight to an industry scientist position. (And, in the last few decades, it has become unheard of for a PhD to go straight to a tenure-track job. But, that's a different talk for a different day.) With a PhD and a post-doc, you would start in the low- to mid-100s. The titles are different, but vary among research investigator or group leader or staff/senior scientist. As you increase to more senior and/or director positions, you can reasonably expect increases of 20 - 50k per rung as you climb the ladder. 200s to 300s is not all that uncommon for directors (or what not), and I've heard anecdotes of high-level scientists, under C-level, in the 500 - 700 range.

>>8780925
Whoa, you see the fragility of our nascent species and those species without our cognitive ability and innovation and simply say: "Fuck it, money time!"

I see our world, our spieces and those other spieces that are 'below us' and see the rarity of it, the beauty of it; the mystery of it and the majesty of our innovation.

With our application for objective profit, we have a chance to save this world, or at least its biodiversity and with it ourselves and the ability to continue to study it.

This, anon, this is where we differ.

You are what I like to term a 'wonky nihilist'.

As for money, I stated its purpose, it is a tool and a token in place of the direct trading of goods.

You're the one who mythologised it, money that is.

>>8780937
>forex
money doesn't require global currency exchanges
>MMT
or ivory tower theories with no basis in reality

try again sweetie.

>>8780948 come at me: >>8780946
I'm waiting, you broken record, you.

>>8780946
>With our application for objective profit, we have a chance to save this world, or at least its biodiversity and with it ourselves and the ability to continue to study it.
this is where i previously disagreed with you but you seem to have remedied it. before it seemed like you oddly limited 'objective profit' to only humanity instead of other animals and the environment, so i'm glad you've added this.

>>8780954
For now, we're the only 'likely' saviour of this little doomed rock, therefore (in my opinion) we do matter on the objective scale.

>>8780948
that's how your national banks operate nublet

do you even know what a bond is m8?

or what % of gdp your country's healthcare expenditure is?

try again with what? money is speculation clearly "medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively."

you are speculating on the value of services - that is a purchase

>brainlets

>>8780951
im not him you fucking retard, do I use proper grammar or punction ?

>>8780961
Without the gold standard, currency is just a tradeable concept with apparent value based on its vaulation.

So yes, this anon is right, it is speculation.

>>8780973
>gold standard
>gold has objective value
>objects have objective value

Kys brainlet

>>8780976
>>8780971
these are me, why is this thread not dead yet when it was pol cancer from start to finish?

are there no cigarette conspiracy threads, are there no global warming containment threads?


are there no cigarette conspiracy threads, are there no global warming containment threads?

>>8780976
They have a use, the use would be its value.

Are you really that slope craniumed?

File: laughing wombs.jpg (587KB, 1500x1143px) Image search: [Google]

587KB, 1500x1143px

>>8780971
>>8780961
>>8780976
>>8780973
>i took a first semester class on economics and think i'm an authourity on money
sorry to break it to you sweetie...

>>8780983
Refute any of that then, you're not even offering a counter-assertion there, just ad hoc. I thought you didn't ad hom, anon?

I guess I won another one.

>>8780413
i do engineering internal R&D for a large us company and get paid 6 figures

>>8780982
>value as a real measurable quality
i thought we were philofagging brainlet ?
if you weren't kys
>>8780983
>applying econometrics to a small portion of a closed system
wut is disparate bidding kek

>>8780987
>*ad hom, not ad hoc

>>8780991
Are you saying a useful material isn't valueable?

If so, I think the saying is: "Never go full retard."

>>8780987
i've already refuted about 120 pots in this thread

it gets tiring dealing with you brainlet edgelords who never know when to concede deafeat.

come back in 4 years once you're done your degree and try again.

File: 1466627856668.png (275KB, 395x395px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 395x395px

>>8780997
No the fucking didn't!

You certainly didn't refute that, you just ad homed both of us (there were two anons in that selection), after having the audacity to claim you don't and didn't ad hom!

Fucking... fuck... asdasdjaskda

>>8781002
>No the fucking didn't!
what's happening to your english ability m8?

if it's not your first language i MIGHT accept that as a reason for your faulty arguements.

>>8780996
you've basically set up a slippery slope argument if you don't predicate any value with amortization and lost-value/sunk-costs
those both explicitly tie to future values (of money: depreciation/inflation, which are tied to global bond market place), of services (competition in the future against sunk cost now), and what your skillset (as a nation, person, group) is and how you can leverage that for personal gain (how will you be spending your work and free time, GDP, development of programs)
so, sure, we use things - yes

does value have a worthwhile meaning? not really, but its a good shortform for decision trees

is value's definition robust - not really

money is speculation

>>8781007
And what reason I accept for your faulty arguments?

Also, to note, you might not want to start on the grammar fallacy, I'll take you apart.

>t. former English major and grandson of an English professor.

ITT: god damn commies

>>8781012
none of my arguements have been faulty, but you can try to go down that road if you please.

>t. former English major and grandson of an English professor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

try again honeybun.

>>8781012
and he couldn't tell our shiposts apart

>>8781014
>brainlet who doesn't understand central planning
corporations do it you fucking brainlet

you look to minimize risk fucking retarded manchild

its just corporations' risk is mostly sheep's retarded thinking (shareholders)

>>8781011
Fair enough, I concede defeat and understanding.

>>8781014
I'm not a commie, you commie.


>>8781015
That was a veiled shitpost, I stopped being SRS BIZZNESS a couple of hours ago (as this anon noticed: >>8781016).

In all seriousness, they have 'strong' arguments from your POV.

However, my hypocritical hipster, you too have made an argument from authority, with your BS over degrees and having the 'most amount of degrees'.

So, I doubt you've much of a place to be speaking about appeals to MUH AUTHORITEH!

Try... again... dickstick.

File: 1475301658471.jpg (45KB, 634x626px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 634x626px

>>8781011
>does value have a worthwhile meaning? not really

>>8780526
We're talking about real science, not applied """"""science"""""".

>>8780526


Google is the worst place to work. You become a literally slave.

>>8780944
Do you have references you could share for those numbers or at least tell me this comes from personal experience?

I do a project in battery chemistry / materials. I work in engineering and chemistry. I definitely see myself in industry after my PhD and I really want to believe those numbers. As it is write now, you can write grants for battery projects in crayon and get funded, so I could see finding a job early out of school to be relatively easy for me. I'm just looking for someone to confirm or deny?

>>8781119
Not to mention the cost of living in SoCal is obscene. That 170k is nowhere near as much as it sounds.

>>8781190
>Not to mention the cost of living in SoCal is obscene. That 170k is nowhere near as much as it sounds.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/27/silicon-aa-cost-of-living-crisis-has-americas-highest-paid-feeling-poor

>“I didn’t become a software engineer to be trying to make ends meet,” said a Twitter employee in his early 40s who earns a base salary of $160,000. It is, he added, a “pretty bad” income for raising a family in the Bay Area.

>“We make over $1m between us, but we can’t afford a house,” said a woman in her 50s who works in digital marketing for a major telecoms corporation, while her partner works as an engineer at a digital media company. “This is part of where the American dream is not working out here.”

>Another tech worker feeling excluded from the real estate market was 41-year-old Michael, who works at a networking firm in Silicon Valley and last year earned $700,000. Sick of his 22-mile commute to work, which can sometimes take up to two and half hours, he explored buying a property nearer work. Although he said his salary means he can afford to live a decent life, he finds the cost of living, combined with the terrible commute, unpalatable.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/03/facebook-engineers-struggling-with-rents-ask-mark-zuckerberg-for-help.html

>In 2015, according to SmartAsset.com, the cost of living there was "62.6% higher than the U.S. average." In 2016, the same site found that you'd need to make at least $216,129 a year to afford the rent on an average two-bedroom apartment.

>The article recounts the frustrations of tech workers making between $100,000 and $700,000 a year and yet finding themselves rent-burdened, unable to save and commuting for hours each day. In one colorful example, an Apple employee lived until recently in a garage in Santa Cruz, using a bucket as a toilet.

>>8781200
If you want to be miserable, live in the Bay Area. Rent is absurd there.

>>8781143
>Do you have references you could share for those numbers or at least tell me this comes from personal experience?

Those figures come from personal experience, my own and colleagues in biotech/pharma. My first year out of undergrad, I interviewed for a number of jobs in small- to mid-size biotech firms. I got a few temp jobs that never become long-term/full-time (though, I was around long enough able to get ballpark estimates of salaries of people in at various levels). I ended up going back to academia, to work as lab tech. That was some years ago, so all of the techs who I worked alongside have moved on, the majority to industry. I was one of the few that went to a PhD program, but I've kept in contact with them. Here I'll note that I'm from a biotech hub, so the academia/industry "revolving door" needs to be taken into account, as does the salary in industry compared to a grad students' stipend and the years of training for a PhD + post-doc.

>>8781200
What the actual fuck? wow

>>8781048
lol utilitarian fags are as bad as reductionists

>>8781206
dude this is just a microcosm of capitalism

rent seeking is what keeps everyone poor

>having a living body allows you to be leveraged
and you'll soon be competing with AI bruhs

>>8781407
i meant to say your workers' bodies are leveraged against

it wouldn't surprise me if VC money owned a good portion of apartment buildings as a way to diversify their risk, god knows they aren't getting a return off startups

>>8780376
minimum wage is 7.25 in the US
full time employs work an average of 47 hours a week
52 weeks in a year

7.25*47*52 = 17719

unless you live in california or a major city, 30k is a wage you could easily live comfortably on
if you wanted to make money you would start your own business

enjoy that money, you earned it

>>8780466
Is it even possible to be a Dr. House?

>>8781407
Not just rent seeking, but rent seeking of specific markets.

There are a few inelastic goods markets of things people NEED to live where you can never create a real market. This is always were you find the most government/lobbying influence as well as the most economic catastrophes; housing, food, transportation, health care, and even telecom.

>>8781585
With enough Asperger's and Vicodin.

>>8780376
You ivory tower intellectuals must not lose touch with the world of industrial growth and hard currency. It is all very well and good to pursue these high-minded scientific theories, but research grants are expensive and you must justify your existence by providing not only knowledge, but concrete and profitable applications as well.

>>8781206
Since the beginning, the best investment has been the real estate, a large part of the billionaires are due to the possession of land, is the safest investment, so safe that it seems boring

>>8781603
How do you even get past med school admissions? Unless you're a grade A actor.

File: 1488648479640.gif (2MB, 177x150px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 177x150px

>>8780376
>fell for the Academic meme

nice pasta m8

>>8780376
2 word faggot

EARTH SCIENCE

Just jumping into this one but certain industries are really slow to change. Things only ever get changed if they are significantly profitable compared to their predecessor. This means it doesn't matter if you research a new x that does y 15% better than z. Because it will never be implemented until w comes along and does y 50% better than z at half the price.

In other industries it's a lot different. And technology is always getting tossed aside for better and newer things. We see this mostly in software bcause software is relatively cheap, can rapidly be implemented, and requires basically no resources to produce.

High end corporate researchers get payed well. But similarly even if whatever you've researched is great it might never be implemented until it's profitable. Or it'll be shelved permanently and forgotten about. One of my professors often talked about how he worked in textile manufacturing research and helped develop a system that didn't get implemented for over two decades after he had left the company.

>>8780419
Same goals mate

>>8780376
>The "free market" system abhors scientific and technological progress

This is how you know you've been brainwashed into the cult of socialsm/communism. Capitalist countries are the most technologically advanced on the planet and communist ones some of the least.

>>8783885
>ignoring basic research and education
yeah socialism really killed science funding and the USSR wasn't able to make it to space

totalitarian regimes control information - I agree with you there

>>8780535
>4chan
It really erks me when some anon categorizes one board as a whole. From what I remebered lurking here years ago, /sci/entists didn't mind working EE or CS. EE has a lot of maths--which everybody knows is superior. What happened to /sci/? Where did all this /pol/-esque posts come from? It gets worse here every year;_____;

>>8780542
Future CS grafuate here, why do you think CS majors are more inclined to depression?

>>8780542
>kill yourself at 40
Well, you start of as code monkey. I am in a computer club where I talk with a lot of cs. I met once CS graduates that graduated during the 80's. They are all in their 40's and they don't program anymore, they come to these event organized by this computer club because they miss programming and that is due to them now programming anymore because they are doing project management. However, they all had masters. It feels like Bachelors in cs are prone to become code monkeys unless they excelled during their education.