Have some scientists just got TOO much time on their hands?

Question

After the study on why toast always falls butter side down, we now have the formula for the "beer goggles" effect.

The formula goes like this:


β = (An)^2 x d(S + 1)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
√L x (Vo)^2


where:
An is the number of servings of alcohol
S is the smokiness of the area on a scale of 0 - 10
L is the lighting level of the area, measured in candelas per square meter, in which 150 is normal room lightning
Vo is Snellen visual acuity, in which 6/6 is normal and 6/12 is the lower limit at which someone is able to drive
d is the distance between the observer and the observed, measured in meters

Who in the world is funding these people, and where do I go for a job application?

Answer 1

It isn't som much as having time on their hands as it is getting reputation for their schhos, selves, or comapnies/institutions.
You need to publish or discover something relevant in order for your university or endowment programs to keep funding you.

How often have we asked the stupid questions of why does something happen?
How often have you given a generic answer to your kid of "The butter adds weight to the bread so it will flip to that side"?

Now you can point to some "expert" in a highly regarded journal.
And the next time you wake up next to that trucker dude from Tacoma, Washington after a nite of binge drinking, you can pull up this equation and figure out where you might have been able to prevent it.

Answer 2

I assume that you aren't asking this as a rheotorical question and that example isn't just a made up thing. No, in general scientists do not have too much time on their hands. There's plenty of things to study and to be understood. It seems like everytime we get closer to something, two more things pop up that we don't understand.

However, it gets boring on the job to always be studying the serious problems in the same field. We need escape and diversions too. So the silly things get looked at. It's a part of the training and personality to look at things from the scientic perspective, even if it comes down to looking at frivolous things. A lot of things get investigated because someone says "I wonder what would happen...." or "I wonder why..." in the lunch cafeteria. In short, it's a fun diversion. All these scientists probably have real day time jobs studying something else.

As for funding, it's usually done on the side and doesn't use much money or time. If it's a big enough deal, it's usually funded by general funds from the institution if the insitution can absorb it while still funding the critical items or if it deem the subject to be of some value, be it reputation or definite financial return.

Answer 3

Scientists will analyze and come up with a theory for almost anything. They like to solve problems (which is why questions get answers at this site). They do it at home as well as at work, it is like exercising to keep in shape for an athlete. People who don't do it are probably not worth paying to do research so taxpayers will just have to put up with the silliness.

Answer 4

If in fact they are able to show a quadratic dependence on the number of drinks (vs say linear or exponential) it could be used in formulating laws regarding "number of drinks" allowed.

Since Body mass is not included, I would conclude that it is "just for fun" and needs about as much funding justification as college sports!

Answer 5

They are funded by the taxpayer!

Answer 6

When you find where to get the application let me know, please! I'll do anything, please.