Is science at odds with philosophy?

[timewerx]

What profession are you in that is so pure no one does it for money?

Scientists don't do it for money usually. It's a very stimulating career. Just many ends up working for big companies and become rich in the process.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Scientists don't do it for money usually. It's a very stimulating career. Just many ends up working for big companies and become rich in the process.

Not very many - there are many scientists and few rich scientists.

 

[tas8831]

Note: The lab leak theory is looking more and more likely.

That didn't age well.

 

[tas8831]

Ummm... no. Science is just a simple handle for what is properly termed Natural Philosophy.

Wow, great insights..

 

[tas8831]

Not very many - there are many scientists and few rich scientists.

The rich ones that I am aware of earned big bucks by writing books or leaving academia.
The father of a kid I went to high school with was a chemist at a small local college. He drove a Porsche. They lived in the 'rich' part of town, etc. He had written what became, at that time (late 1970s/early 1980s ) one of the most popular introductory inorganic chemistry lab manuals on the market. About 10 years later, when I took my first chem class in college, I chuckled to myself when I purchased the required lab manual - it was something like the 9th edition of my friend's father's lab manual.
He didn't drive a Porsche on his chem prof's salary.

 

[tas8831]

It's based entirely on the views of sinners.

QAnon and creationism? Yes.

Not only are humans wrong, but they can choose to deceive at will.

Creationists in particular.

Fraud in science: a plea for a new culture in research - Nature
Currently, there are numerous and partly publicly discussed cases of research misconduct and fraud. These cases span various sciences, but are particularly common in biomedical research.

"These cases span various sciences, but are particularly common in biomedical research. "


How about cleaning your own house?

Church sex abuse: Thousands of paedophiles in French Church, inquiry says

 

[SkyWriting]

QAnon and creationism? Yes.

Creationists in particular.

"These cases span various sciences, but are particularly common in biomedical research. "


How about cleaning your own house?

Church sex abuse: Thousands of paedophiles in French Church, inquiry says

I agree. I'm not a church member nor do I play one on TV.

 

[FredVB]

Personally, I reject the notion of "metaphysics". After all what is there except physics and things derived therefrom, so how could anything be beyond physics. Makes no sense.

There are things known from science, inclusive of physics which work as a basis for things known from science, but still anyone has philosophy along with those things known. No one who is thoughtful gets away from having any philosophy. And not all things are known from science. There is not agreement on what came before which caused this universe to come into being. You can't say honestly you know there are no other things but what things physics includes.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There are things known from science, inclusive of physics which work as a basis for things known from science, but still anyone has philosophy along with those things known. No one who is thoughtful gets away from having any philosophy. And not all things are known from science. There is not agreement on what came before which caused this universe to come into being. You can't say honestly you know there are no other things but what things physics includes.

Sure I can.

Is literature a science or derived directly from the laws of physics? No.

Is the scientific method the best way to understand literature? No, of course not.

But that's not what I was claiming. Literature and philosophy and all of those things that aren't best described by science were created by humans, and humans operate with in the realm subject to the laws of physics. No additional "input" is required from beyond physics. I see no reason to think there is anything beyond the laws of physics, so I "reject" what is "beyond" physics. (Hence the smiley after my rejection of "meta" physics.)

 

[The Barbarian]

The rich ones that I am aware of earned big bucks by writing books or leaving academia.

Or leave academia and go to work for a medical research company that makes a groundbreaking discovery.

 

[FredVB]

Sure I can.

Is literature a science or derived directly from the laws of physics? No.

Is the scientific method the best way to understand literature? No, of course not.

But that's not what I was claiming. Literature and philosophy and all of those things that aren't best described by science were created by humans, and humans operate with in the realm subject to the laws of physics. No additional "input" is required from beyond physics. I see no reason to think there is anything beyond the laws of physics, so I "reject" what is "beyond" physics. (Hence the smiley after my rejection of "meta" physics.)

So you have a philosophy, a philosophy that you hold to very strongly, a philosophy of something that can't be proven, the philosophy that there is nothing but what is physical of the universe, while that still had a beginning. So such things as love and as justice can never be really trusted, with this philosophy.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So you have a philosophy, a philosophy that you hold to very strongly, a philosophy of something that can't be proven, the philosophy that there is nothing but what is physical of the universe, while that still had a beginning. So such things as love and as justice can never be really trusted, with this philosophy.

So you replied to 3 month old post to write this? What is this even supposed to mean?

 

[Opdrey]

Which philosopher was that?

I believe it was Memoclese.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I believe it was Memoclese.

 

[Mountainmike]

Or leave academia and go to work for a medical research company that makes a groundbreaking discovery.

Most pharmaceutical companies fail.
Most new drugs fail.
Most of the scientists are not well paid.
The work is 99% perspiration 1% inspiration.
Most pharma companies do not want to make originator product now.
Patent life is too short. Regulatory costs are eyewatering.
A successful new drug costs typically 500m. (industry figure)
Phase 3 trials are 100-200m of that.
Thats why there is a patent cliff. It is why there are no new antibiotics.
Nobody can afford to make them!

There is only one group who consistently cream it all: doctors.
They take no risk. They generally follow a set process. If they follow it they take no risk. The drugs they prescribe someone else has tested
( although doctors have creamed the drug trials too)
Yet pharma are the miracle workers.

Until COVID the economics of vaccines was very poor too.

 

[Opdrey]

Patent life is too short.

20 years after filing seems pretty good, actually. Would you propose a separate patent term for pharmaceuticals? That's going to be kind of tough.

If a company can't make their nickel on a 20 year patent term they probably aren't doing very well overall.

Also the real value of a patent to society at large is that the term isn't so onerously long that old technology can remain monopolized by the original assignee but it allows them to make their nut and society gains in the long run. Even with this in place the pharma companies evergreen their IP in order to keep it in their hands.

 

[Opdrey]

Yet pharma are the miracle workers.

About 50% of the blockbuster drugs were actually developed with NIH funding and done by universities. Often times the pharma companies just buy the IP and reap the rewards. Of course some pharma companies do original research, but some of the big money is in stuff we, the tax payer, already paid for to develop.

 

[AV1611VET]

About 50% of the blockbuster drugs were actually developed with NIH funding and done by universities. Often times the pharma companies just buy the IP and reap the rewards. Of course some pharma companies do original research, but some of the big money is in stuff we, the tax payer, already paid for to develop.

What about Vioxx?

 

[Hans Blaster]

What about Vioxx?

If you want to find out there is this new website called "Google" that might be useful. They have this amazing search engine that can find things out for you.

 

[Mountainmike]

About 50% of the blockbuster drugs were actually developed with NIH funding and done by universities. Often times the pharma companies just buy the IP and reap the rewards. Of course some pharma companies do original research, but some of the big money is in stuff we, the tax payer, already paid for to develop.

It makes a good story. The truth is rather different.

My oh ( other half since you queried it ) despaired of yet another university “ eureka” . Such projects wasted most of her time, and most of her companies money.

The universities simply do not have either the knowledge or systems to characterise cell lines, drug substance or impurities to the standards and good maufactuting practice needed for regulation. The efficacy claims were made far too soon, and based on either bad assumptions , inadequate testing or bad science.

Whenever commercial biotech took over a project they had to go back to first base, and by the time the substance , and impurities were properly characterised, the cell lines stabilised, it often failed at early trial stages. The efficacy was not demonstrated, and it wasted many millions. Most of the products fail. Most of their successes were not a eureka , but slow but sure commercial development, based on proper characterisations. The job is 99.9% perspiration, not inspiration. That is also where the money is. Ideas are ten a penny.

But thats the real world of pharma.

the profs of course basked in the limelight of “ wonder cure”, on which they would dine out for years. The world gave them kudos but failed to realise most of it was bunk. Yet another university product fails, isn’t much of a media story. All of them want a “ cut” of success. None of them seem to want to gamble the tens of millions. They play heads they win. Tails big pharma loses.
Whatever happens doctors cream it, having had none the ideas , put in in none of the money and they take none of the risk.


Then of course the left and media war would start against “ greedy big pharma” . Nobody explained that the 100 million in profit would be sunk on yet another wasted phase 3 trial. That’s why big pharma needs profit. I’ve lost count of the number of people I’ve known who have ended up looking for jobs when the latest pharma company failed. That’s the reality.

Big pharma is not a great business. It delivers all the miracle products. Takes all of big financial risks. The patent life and regulation excess make it hard to succeed. It Gets none of the credit, but faces a socialist media hate war. But then life was never fair.