we already have plenty of evidence that even science people (flawed humans, like us all) cannot "do proper science" because they are swayed by irrational arguments such as distaste, shame, appeals to tradition, conformism etc. etc.
Well then you'll have no trouble demonstrating it and you will receive the accolades, the fame and the fortune that creating the first room-temperature superconductor will bring you.
That's not the case, though. If you say "I've got a room temperature semiconductor" (or a reactionless drive, or an antigravity machine, or whatever) and tell people how you did it, people will _absolutely_ try to reproduce that. Not just academic institutions, either; the US Navy has a bit of a history of trying to reproduce obvious nonsense, in particular.
There’s lots and lots of academic research. And a fair bit of Department of Energy money flowing into those labs. There’s lots of interest. There’s lots of papers.
And the great thing about those who “do proper science” in materials research: you can do actual science by repeating and verifying the experiments.
exactly, if you work at UR why the fuck are you working on nobel prize level stuff? that's for ivy leaguers. sjeeez.
sorry, I am just so pissed off right now. ufff.
it's really nasty, we don't like that it works like this. BUT it does work like this. People quite academia because it works like this; them who don't quit are lucky in different ways to avoid this harsh facts (e.g. ppl grandfathered into the ivy top).
downvoting this truths don't fix them. heck, most downvoters don't see the problems nor wanna stare the nasty top of our society; hoping to get to the top and shit down instead of instaling a decent toilet up there.
on the promise to one day get to shit downwards; glad to be out of the pooprain... and so we stay stuck.
But then what would even be the point to do that?
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/grist-t...
There's a great 3-part documentary on youtube about it, which argues Schön was probably a contender for the Nobel Prize in Physics before everything collapsed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfDoml-Db64
it’s understandable really. if you’re working with extremely unreplicable results, as they are here, and you genuinely believe in your results, then it’s only a small step. it’s still inexcusable of course, but it’s easy to see the thought process
this is not the same as what you’re describing, which is setting out to cheat from the beginning, which is almost certainly much rarer and undoubtedly harder to get away with, even in obscure cul-de-sacs
By chance, about a decade ago I met the lead researcher of a NASA group that in 2010 made a shocking claim of arsenic being incorporated into bacteria's DNA in place of phosphorus at Mono Lake, CA. They later had to retract the statement after others were unable to replicate. But the research I did into the follow up indicated that NASA, who employed the scientist, did not have its astrobiologists follow basic standard microbiology protocols against sample contamination, and pushed the arsenic hypothesis as a game-changing breakthrough before it had been subjected to peer review.
You do not want to be going "I've got a room temperature superconductor" or "I've detected a dark matter particle" or "I've got a simple procedure for flipping matter to anti-matter" or "I've cured all cancers". People are going to want follow-up details and to reproduce it and to begin building on it and turning it into engineering.
You gotta keep your aspirations realistic. You need to be working off in the darkness somewhere, not trying to conquer the territory where the brightest lights are shining. Don't try to fraud your way to Nobel-prize level work.