分類
筆記

The Myth of Basic Science-WSJ

WSJ上值得一讀的好文:「The Myth of Basic Science

作者認為:

1. 多數科技發展本身是一種有機的、類生命型態的進化發展,T. Edison並非同時期唯一想到與發明電燈的人、A. Bell也非同時期唯一發明電話的人。

科技進步是沒有英雄的!甚至有一點「必然」的宿命味道 — 就算T. Edison英年早逝,電燈還是會被其它人給發明出來。

2. 科技進程甚至比科學還來得早、來得重要。許多抽象的科學理論,沒有當時科技的進步造成「可能」的話,搞抽象理論的科學家無從想像更無從驗證自身的理論。

3. 19世紀歐洲國家如法國,利用國家資源鼓勵科學研究;而沒有國家資源鼓勵的英、美,科技成就卻遠高於有國家資源的!

甚至20世紀以來,美國透過國家資源獎勵的科學研究項目,對人類經濟改善重要性是zero!對人類有重大經濟改善的科技發明、進步,均是來自於私人企業!

更糟的是,國家獎勵特定科技發展項目,會造成「擠出效應」,使得原本私人可以做得更好的科技發展,在國家介入之下反而一事無成。

根據作者的看法,台灣國科會、工研院之類的組織都可以廢了。

我自己是工研院出來的,老實說,很多科專計畫內容根本就是騙政府錢而已。作者的這個論點我個人是挺認同的。

值得一讀的好文,我更期待作者將上市的新書。

3 replies on “The Myth of Basic Science-WSJ”

Bravo to this great article! It can’t be more right! But it’s a sad thing to see most people still believe “Big-Government-ism" after reviewing all the comments left under this article on WSJ website. It seems to me that this Big-Government-ism frenzy is popular around the world, not just in Taiwan. One of the key factors that lead to innovation is “competition," which is often killed by government! That’s why government-funding programs or projects never work. Why does it need progress when there is no need to compete? This rule does not only apply to science or technology advances, it can also apply to our daily life. Take our public transportation system for example. Many people often complain that the public transportation in Taiwan doesn’t enjoy high quality. No matter what government does, it just can’t get any better. That’s because, just like what happens to science or technology advances, the field is without competition! Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying there is only one public transportation company providing service. I’m saying this market is strictly controlled by government. It is those public transportation regulations and laws that prevent any new potential service providers or new revolutionary ways of transportation from coming into this market. The ridiculous thing is that if you ask government why it does it, the answer is always," that’s for people’s own good!"

這與 “反脆弱" 一書作者塔雷伯的觀點一樣,他以實例說明許多的創新或發現,並非學術機構的理論貢獻的,而是實務界的人士從實做
中發現的。

元毓兄,奸佞為禍之後希望一切安好;技術在手,東邊不亮西邊亮,以張兄之大才另起爐灶指日可待!頭一回留言還是想說:倘若得空也別忘了發發新文,解解粉絲的癮頭。加油!

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com 標誌

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Google photo

您的留言將使用 Google 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Facebook照片

您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

連結到 %s