|
Article Publishing
|
~ science is a bad joke |
Note: This article is a rough copy typed on a cell phone, will fix up later
For all my life I have respected science but the more I look into it the more I see serious problems with it. The basic problem with it is the ivory tower morons who run it and their lack of communication. They keep their little ivory tower doors shut, and your only ticket in is to pay $20,000 to an institution so you can get your "I submit to my professor like a little trained puppy dog" certificate (degree).
In computer programming, if you want to talk to someone important, you can literally go on to an email list and get responses even from the compiler writer himself, sometimes within minutes. Compare this to to science, which is a complete failure in regards to communication. In order to talk to an important scientist you have to jump through all sorts of hoops, hand over thousands of dollars of cash, and flash your gay Ph D certificate in front of everyone.
In programming you have a chance at talking to important people, but in science you have no chance unless you play their ivory tower game and be little submissive pussy. In science new ideas are ridiculed and trashed to diarhea peices if it doesn't conform to existing ivory tower ideology and checkmark with existing theories (conform).
In programming new ideas are implemented based on their merit, not based on the ivory tower red tape process. In science new ideas are trashed and ridiculed to their death, and then accepted as self evident years later when someone with higher up power decides it's okay.
This advantage that programming has over science is indeed a double edged sword as programming gets too many ideas implemented that are funky and possibly even wrong. However at least programmers communicate, whereas scientist sit in their ivory towers locking up their ideas to only those who join their ivory tower clubs.
To be able to actually talk to an important scientist is worse than pulling teeth. You have to jump through hoops like a dog in a dog show. Submission is key in science. If you lick your professor's nutsack and agree with current theory, you go forward. In programming, you can dominate and not submit like a twat, just by writing an amazing piece of code, with no hoops to jump through.
Just look at the sad state of affairs: no one knows who invented tcp/ip sockets, what everyone uses daily. No one cares who invented it. But everyone cares about celeb scientists. Why aren't the guys who wrote sockets stars? And that's why programmers are on email lists discussing, because while celeb scientists raise their popularity, programmers actually do work. Science has become a game of becoming popular, not to mention stealing other peoples theories without giving credit. In programming this happens too, but in science you are well known if you contribute something amazing, whereas virtually no one knows who invented ip sockets, the technology that everyone uses daily even more than einstein's theories.
Programming is not sexy enough to be celeb status, but in a way that is good because programmers have to gain respect other ways such as going on to an email list and releasing code, whereas science only lets you release science code if you first jump through all sorts of institutions and hoops first. Since programmers are not celebrities in ivory science towers, you can actually talk to them, whereas scientists are locked away with keys that you cannot get easily.
Science is a popularity show whereas in programming people are after knowledge sharing more than popularity. Indeed if your code is used by many people your code will be popular, but the programmer? Relatively unknown. No one knows or cares who wrote tcp ip sockets, probably the most important layer of code ever written...but the code itself is popular. The knowledge spreads but the programmer remains unnoticed, which I call the "unknown programmer" similar to The Unknown Soldier.
Sure their are some lame programmer celebs out there such as Richard Stallman (good programmer, dumb philosopher), but let's be honest they aren't actually celebs, they are some kind of communist socialist silly bums promoting a retarded license that not even a PhD scientist could understand if he read it three times through.
See also striking similarities science and open source for a different spin on this.
|
|