Yes, that stuff is my bag - I work for the research department of a European bank. It's like doing research anywhere, except that the cycles are shorter and the rewards are better. I'm more of a computer-scientist than a math-guru. I think I qualify as a professional researcher.

What gets me about the whole conversation (see the Dr Truth) thread, is that there are many of us on this site who are engaged with serious research of one sort or another. I am told that my scientific worldview is fundamentally flawed because of my "materialist" bias, and yet what I do seems to work. It passes the ultimate test which is that it makes my employer money.

Even in the job of modeling things as irrational as financial markets, the assumptions of materialism seem to be perfectly adequate. Indeed, attempts to apply 'spiritual technology' to the business of predicting markets have famously resulted in financial ruin.

In my experience, the only people who cry outrage at "materialism" are those who wish to elevate their own para-science to the more well-regarded level of mainstream science.

All intelligent beings are capable of generating a design approach.

Obviously noone denies humans manipulate biological material. I'm just pointing out that the "design approach" used by biotech firms owes absolutely nothing to the ID movement.

Congratulations, may I ask what your subject is?

Thanks and see my previous post. If I remember correctly you're doing financial math. Option pricing, stochastic differential equations and stuff like that I suppose. I know a guy who made a bundle in finance before going back to academia and apply his skills to evolutionary models.

Glad to hear it's working out for you. It's tough to make it in that arena, and I'm happy you survived the process.

Thanks.

I was certain from a young age that I wanted to be a scientist until I saw my mentor rejected for tenure. He was the most brilliant professor I ever had and a superb teacher and inspiration for the brighter and more capable students, but did not bring in enough grant money. I realized then I would not be pursuing an academic career.

I've seen that kind of thing happen. Or worse, that someone was denied tenure for personal reasons. Before students embark on a PhD project, I always advise them that the long-term odds of academic employment are not great. On the other hand, for people in my field (theoretical biology/population genetics) it's usually not too difficult to find employment elsewhere. Computing/programming/math skills are always in demand.

Back to the topic. For what it is worth, I was lucky enough to get tenure myself two weeks ago and I can sympathize a lot with Knop's feelings.

Tenure generally reflects a commitment to academic excellence and a track record of original and successful research.

Congratulations, may I ask what your subject is?

Glad to hear it's working out for you. It's tough to make it in that arena, and I'm happy you survived the process.

I was certain from a young age that I wanted to be a scientist until I saw my mentor rejected for tenure. He was the most brilliant professor I ever had and a superb teacher and inspiration for the brighter and more capable students, but did not bring in enough grant money. I realized then I would not be pursuing an academic career.

Let me add my congratulations too. My professors tried to talk the younger me into going the academia route. I was too greedy.

In a way, I envy you. I am forced to be content with trying to write thought provoking posts in blogs.

Good Luck to you.

You wrote…

Of course"“what I am saying is that you must do something novel, and it must be defensible. It cannot be novel merely for the sake of being novel, at least not in science.
…
And something that is novel but not defensible"”that is it cannot be tested"”would be viewed as lunatic fringe. There are some short term exceptions to this as new ideas are fleshed out. For example, String Theory was given a free pass for a while"”but its lack of connection to experiment has started to turn the tide against it, I believe.

I would be curious of your thoughts on the Penrose-Hameroff model I have been presenting. Is it novel science or lunatic fringe in your estimation?

While recognizing that that I am very much the layman (my training is engineering), it seems that too many pieces fit together which are ripe for experimentation.

Have the sciences become too compartmentalized?

In my Doctor Who comment, I am suggesting a reality that should be considered a given (as I understand General Relativity) but is it still too radical of an assumption for biologists?

Joy has expressed a frustration along these lines in the past. If biologists are looking to novel ideas to explore, maybe they need to look beyond the artificial barriers they set up. Physicists too, might want to consider refocusing some of the energy in chasing elusive strings and consider the possibilities of organized quantum activities at the larger scale, say in DNA strands and microtubules.

Excuse my detour into soap box advocacy, but I would like your honest (brutal if necessary) opinion on how far out on the lunatic fringe this is and why.

Thanks,
TP