Science is not a Wise Career Choice

Science is a gamble. To be a scientist is to be paid to research things. But that research may yield no new or important discoveries. “Or important” is important. Anyone can make new discoveries of totally trivial and useless facts. Most doctoral dissertations are written on precisely these: totally useless facts. Most professional scientists are paid to discover precisely these: totally useless facts. But nobody should fund people for trivial and useless research. But that is what science has become: a bastion of trivial and useless research. Very few scientific discoveries translate into meaningful and valuable treatments or technologies. It has become an arm of the welfare state: a way to make money doing nothing, by pretending that you are doing something.

Of course, as a gamble, scientists have the potential to serendipitously trip upon something truly useful. But how are we supposed to know any more than the scientists when these discoveries will arise? All that a scientist can do is to make his case before the public in layman’s terms. That is what science magazines should be about: asking for funding for projects featured in those magazines, written in layman’s terms. And that’s fine.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t exactly work that way. The welfare state allocates tax dollars to scientists, so the public believe that worthwhile projects are appropriately funded. However, not only are worthwhile projects not properly funded; silly projects are overly funded.

Nonetheless, how can anyone be sure, when entering into the science profession, that he will embark upon research projects, let alone discoveries, that would be deemed worthwhile?

In light of this rhetorical question, I find that science is not appropriate as a profession. Indeed, it never was appropriate as a profession. It  never was appropriate to thrust a man into a field in which he had better make some great discoveries very quickly or he will be consigned to the life of a beggar. Rather, the way that science should be approached is not as a career, but as a hobby. That is, it should not be a primary profession, but a secondary project.

If you have a solid day job, and you make it a part time hobby to conduct scientific investigations, or to work with others to conduct scientific investigations, which may or may not involve substantial contributions from donors, then it is possible to safely and wisely practice science without being a full-time scientist. Of course, if a project is so well-funded and so lucrative that a man decides to make it his full-time job, then that’s fine. But until that time comes, it is downright foolish to pursue science as a primary career. Only ex post facto can one make discoveries that merit sufficient funding to make a career out of science.

No wonder there is so much frivolous and trivial pseudo-science nowadays. When science is regarded as a primary career option, and when the welfare state is used to fund just about any discovery, no matter how useless, junk science – such as that of the global warming hoax – inevitably dominates the scientific literature and the scientific culture.

Furthermore, science and government are bound to be bed-buddies when scientists depend on the good graces of government for their livelihoods. Though scientists seek to portray themselves as innocent pursuers of truth, they are human beings just like the rest of us. Many of them have serious mental problems despite that they are allegedly “smart” given their alleged status as “scientists.” But scientists need to eat, too. And if big business wants to “prove” that smoking doesn’t kill you, or if big pharma wants to “prove” that SSRI’s are appropriate for depression, or if big government wants to “prove” that CO2 emissions will precipitate a global warming crisis, it is amazing how the scientific “consensus” is willing to shift in favor of these positions. Indeed, scientists are often the ones who start the hysteria that government officials then use to justify further funding of both the pseudo-science and the “solution” to the “problem” that has been discovered, a la false flag operation.

The widespread moral failings of scientists – such as lack of integrity and honesty in one’s scientific research – can be attributed to the fact that scientists – as well as businessmen for that matter – can spend so much time immersed in their science – or business – that despite how much knowledge – or wealth – they have accumulated, they still lack the only knowledge that is truly essential, and that is philosophical knowledge.

To be sure, philosophy is a science. It is also a technology. It is the most fundamental and most important science and technology. But the vast majority of so-called “doctors of philosophy” are actually fairly clueless when it comes to real philosophy. It turns out that philosophical knowledge is best attained not by drowning in trivial information, as do most scientists and businessmen, but by taking a step back and seeing the forest for the trees. For this reason, most scientists and businessmen today aren’t exactly moral people. Most of them are opportunistic, and willing to bend the truth in order to make a living. Most of them belong to what I call the “parasite class.”

Ideally, scientists deal honestly with themselves and others, and don’t ask for funding just because there is a remote possibility that their research will result in meaningful treatments and technologies. Taking science altogether out of the involuntary (“public”) sector and putting it entirely into the voluntary (“private”) sector is just one part of the solution. The other part of the solution is that the gamble of science is treated as a hobby, and not as a profession.

What can be said for science can be said for art and business ventures. No one can be certain that he will make it as an artist or an entrepreneur. Thus, it is best to hold a solid job by day, and to work on these hobbies by night, perhaps with the hope that they will become more than mere hobbies.

So in what profession should a man enter if he would like to do science on the side? Just about any profession he so desires. He may decide his profession based upon what he believes will help him in his science endeavors. For example, he may wish to become a medical doctor with a neurology specialty while researching the brain, or he may wish to become an aerospace engineer while researching aviation technology.

The bottom line is that a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. This applies to career choice as much as anything.