『科學非萬能』

有point, 所以當我看完胡適的一本談科學的書之後, 就覺得不必看下去, 因為他誇大了科學的作用, 迷信科學的客觀性, 他還曾說大自然是人類最大敵人要克服之, 民初文人的天真可見一斑。


思考有方﹕科學非萬能 勿盲目迷信
(明報)2010年11月25日 星期四 05:05
【明報專訊】「通識教育科」的「科學、科技與環境」學習範圍，提到科學化、科學證據、科學知識、科學精神和科學方法等名詞和概念，貫串在課程內容當中，到底什麼是「科學方法」？
教科書關於科學方法的標準描述，包括下列幾個步驟，同學都耳熟能詳﹕

“1.界定問題﹕
從觀察中發現問題，並清楚界定問題
2.提出假設﹕
就觀察的結果，作出初步的解釋和假設
3.推斷預測﹕
由假設推出觀察性的預測
4.實驗驗證﹕
設計和運用實驗去檢視假設和預測是否正確
5.作出結論﹕
分析結果，作出結論。如果所得的實驗觀察結果不符合假設和預測，需要重新實驗或提出新的假設。”
大瞻假設 小心求證
上述這套所謂「科學方法」，稱之為「實驗方法」更為準確，而「實驗方法」只是多樣的科學方法之一。「實驗方法」無疑標誌著科學發展史上的轉折點，但就是現代自然科學的成就，很多並不利用「實驗方法」直接證明。宇宙天體的體積重量太大，人類無法改變它們的運行軌迹；微觀世界的基本粒子，我們難以準確掌握它們的位置和速度；地質考古的理論和假設，科學家不可能重複一個以億萬年為時間單位的演變過程等等，都是難以通過實驗去「證明」的例子。
另一方面，即使今天能夠在實驗室裏做實驗，與其說是「證明」了某一理論或假設，倒不如說是做了一次「測試」，今天的實驗結果，科學家無法確認可以在將來每次都能重複。
假如上述實驗方法「五部曲」只是眾多科學方法之一，科學方法又是什麼？用胡適的話說﹕「科學的方法，說來其實很簡單，只不過『尊重事實，尊重證據。』在應用上，科學的方法只不過『大膽的假設，小心的求證』。」。又說﹕「科學態度在於撇開成見，擱起感情，只認得事實，只跟證據走。」不同學科的科學方法，例如天文學方法、量子力學方法、地質學方法等，並不局限於實驗證明而更為多姿多彩。套用美國 教育哲學家杜威（John Dewey）的說話﹕「科學是認識的不斷完善。」（Science is the perfecting of knowing.），科學方法強調不斷求真。 科學方法並不能解决所有問題，有它的適用範圍和局限。例如，科學方法可以告訴我們火力發電和核能發電的碳排放量的差別，也可以幫助研究開發發電技術，但卻無法回答到底哪種發電方式更適合香港的可持續發展，因後者是價值取向問題，科學方法可以提供有助討論的答案，卻並不能回答怎樣才算適合香港可持續發展。
科學方法亦不一定比其他方法優越，用科學方法分析李白杜甫優美的詩篇，結果可能只是一大堆無用數字，並非所有有價值的事物都與科學方法兼容，也沒有必要事事訴諸科學，製造迷信。
（系列十五之八）
文﹕張偉基

No news (is good news?)

Haven't made much update in the last 6 months. Things are changing with ups and downs. There may be some good news in a couple of weeks. Much remains uncertain though.



Thesis is near completion. With my full commitment my progress sounds incredible to many people. In February I will be travelling to Austria, if everything works well.



Changes are part of life. Quite often I don't actually have a choice, but I just have to choose.

Grad School Newsletter

'His exceptional strong sense of social and environmental justice is pleasingly contagious. Utopia may not be reachable, but it is worthy of pursuing. Perhaps "it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive" ' Professor Jim described his student - me.
Am I really pursuing utopia? what am I really looking for? Mere knowledge advance, or as he said, justice? or personal fortune? At some stage I have to give an answer.

Publications

2010 journal publications: 2 full-length articles, 2 short commentaries

6. Lo, A. Y. (2010) ‘Active conflict or passive coherence: The political economy of climate change in China’, Environmental Politics.19 (6), pp. 1012-1017.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es101976r10.1080/09644016.2010.518689

5. Lo, A. Y. (2010) ‘China’s Response to Climate Change’, Environmental Science and Technology. 44 (15), pp. 5689-5690.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es101976r


4.Lo, A. Y. and Jim, C. Y. (2010) ‘Differential community effects on perception and use of urban greenspaces’, Cities. 27 (6), pp. 430-442.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2010.07.001

3. Lo, A. Y. and Jim, C. Y. (2010) ‘Willingness of residents to pay and motives for conservation of urban green spaces in the compact city of Hong Kong’, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 9, pp. 113-120.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2010.01.001


No journal publication in 2009.

2008 publications

2. Lo, A. Y. H. (2008) ‘Achieving environmental goals in a competitive electricity market?: Post-colonial Hong Kong, public choice and the role of government’, Energy and Environment, 19(7), pp. 958-978.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1260/095830508786238297


1. Lo, A. Y. H. (2008) ‘Merging electricity and environment politics of Hong Kong: Identifying the barriers from the ways that sustainability is defined’, Energy Policy, 36(4), pp. 1521-1537.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.01.006

(can't post the whole thing here due to copyrights. Full text available upon request)

Climate Change Policy Forum

Fieldwork completed!
All went well.
Organizing a public participatory event like this is not easy at all. It's really an valuable experience though. Feel satisfied by having an open-minded climate sceptic changing to a more supportive position. However there seems to be someone playing game in his response to the questionnaire making the data hard to interpret. Perhaps, this is just part of the real debate.
It's time to move to the next stage - writing up thesis.

My fieldwork

Three weeks ahead. Getting anxious.

Belated 2009 Review

好久沒在這裡認真寫過什麼了

去年風高浪急，多災多難，由年頭黑到年尾，風波多於驚喜，直至現在仍是烏雲蓋頂。

年頭發生什麼就不說了，該知道的人會知道

由三月起就同老闆找research partner，託老闆的福(老闆C - 我有兩個老闆)，很快就找到個同一個department、同老闆有點交情且相當友善的lady, W(一位嬸嬸)合作，可惜談不了兩回，就被告知funding body關門大吉，合作告吹，於是又再重新上路...

其餘時間一直埋首寫literature review，遊走於一大堆文獻之間，且寫且看，日短夜長，三個多月光境就完成research proposal及部份literature review。


五月底搬進校內宿舍，獨立open kitchen及浴室，自有天地，而且價錢合理，只是沒以前中大宿舍般熱鬧，還好宿舍每星期三也有免費的high table dinner，彷英國大學傳統，有點像哈利波特開學聚餐，裝潢類近，有燭光有長桌，但沒如此高規格，也不用formal dresing，氣氛比港大的高桌晚宴稍有不如，食物質素一般，但無論如何，總算有點人氣。

轉眼到了六月，南半球的冬天沒比我想像中冷。甫步入六月就present了我的research proposal，算是進度考核吧，由於錯選地點(不在大學校內)，結果出席者寥寥，也沒打緊，反正也會過的。

不久老闆就告之一個令我當場呆若木雞的消息。話說我數月前，依據碩士論文改編，寫成了一篇理論文章，打算投稿，老闆曾答應會看一看給點意見，然而到了四月他還是沒空看上一眼，我心灰意冷，就決定自行把稿件寄到某期刊。巧合的是稿件竟然輾轉到了老闆手中，原來該期刊編輯收到了兩份評審報告，一篇對我那篇文章持正面評價，另一篇就狠批，編輯對是否接受頗為猶疑，於是另然找了兩個評審再review，其中一個就是我老闆，因為我偷偷投稿之時沒告訴他，所以一時頗感尷尬。

還好那篇文章對正老闆胃口，他告訴我收到這篇文章，很認真的看了一次，認同觀點但認為結構有可改善之處，最後他給編輯發了一份詳細且正面的報告。不幸的是另一個評審一方面在報告裡說自己不適合評審這篇文章，也沒給什麼詳細中肯意見，另一方面卻建議拒絕發表，兩份報告一長一短、一正一負，卻不知何故編輯仍是決定不接受。我只好悻悻然地另投別處了。

七、八月正值寒冬，白天依然陽光普照，因此雖寒冷卻仍感舒服，已把宿舍當成辦公室的我仍是埋首寫literature review，略有小成，亦把部份改寫成期刊文章，準備跟老闆一起發表，另一篇則打算投到department內的working paper series。

八月尾接到好消息，我得獎了，是港大Graduate School是李嘉誠獎，每年全校頒六個，全校文學/社會科學學系的哲學碩士畢業生當中，名額只有一個，那就是我，這不但為本學系增光，也算是一個紀錄 - 不，是兩個，我是第一個地埋學畢業生拿這個獎，而我只花了一年就唸完 (平均要兩年)。

九月初春，我把那篇打算投稿的文章交給另一個老闆(老闆J)看，反應相當正面，於是我將之也交給老闆C，等他批改完就一同發表，可惜六個月後的今天他還沒『有空』瞥上一眼，這是後話。

此時我開始為我的研究計劃有點擔心，這個時候該開始籌劃fieldwork，但老闆C七、八月身在外地，無法當面傾談，到九月他回來卻帶給我一個壞消息，他有可能離開其工作單位。

話說他本準備發表一篇論文，內容包括對澳洲氣候政策的質疑，偏偏他的工作單位是CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization)，算是澳洲政府屬下的科研旗艦，我的獎學金也來自CSIRO，故他的去留可能會對我的去留有影響。CSIRO有學術審查的機制，高層極不希望老闆C發表該文章，甚至出手干預，寫信到該期刊阻止發表，這時候老闆C正在跟高層談判，其時尚未有結果，但因為這個不明朗因素，我要待他的去向確定了，才能繼續計劃我的fieldwork，九月初到十月中，除了寫理論文章、繼續博覽群書以外，實在沒多大作為。

十月底終於有機會到Canberra以後一遊，地點是澳洲北部城市Darwin。這次到該地倒不是為了旅遊，其實是出席一個地區性學術會議，會上我present了那篇打算發表的文章。會議的參與人數不多，六十人左右吧，大家都醉翁之意不在酒，主要都是見見學術界朋友，及到乘機到外地暢遊一番。Darwin一年皆夏，地理上接近馬來西亞，平均溫度30多度，是一個旅遊城市，是為到內陸探險之入口，陽光海灘，城內人人皆一臉閑懶，短衫短褲，感覺有點像台灣墾丁，是次會議的主辦人可謂『用心良苦』!

十一月初回到Canberra，酷熱夏天來臨，不過這時候我卻選擇逃回香港，主要是為了親自上台領獎，也為看看家人。頒獎禮上獲贈足金金牌一枚，據說可賣上萬元，另加詹教授台上為我得獎致詞，此行物有所值。其餘大部份時期都外出跟朋友吃飯，基本上無事可記。

與此同時，我和詹教授合寫的三篇期刊文章之中，終於有一篇有回音。第一篇的評審報告意見稍為偏向負面，其中一位評審持相反的學派觀點，我在給編輯的回應裡對他的觀點大肆批評，經過兩番往來，文章終被接納。 另一篇則於本年初才有回音，意見一正一負，現正在等候進一步回應。另一篇則不幸被拒，於是我們另投他刊。

這數篇文章內容全都是出自我的碩士論文，我巧妙地將之分柝做三篇發表。初稿寫於2008年9月，詹教授貴人事忙，好幾個月後才抽空修改。修改的篇幅頗多，主要為我的寫作技巧不熟練之故，英文文法和句子結構也多有不妥，給他修飾後，行雲流水，可讀性大大提高。不過期刊評審似乎多不滿足，偶有指其文句不佳之評語，不過我對詹教授精巧流暢的英語寫作風格還是信心十足。

十二月初，正值盛夏，偶爾來個37、38度高溫，走在街上猶如熱窩烤肉。那時我剛從香港回來，舟車勞頓，當天回到家我都一直在休息沒幹什活，由於平日都沒來電，我也懶得把手機開動。這麼懶惰一次就教我抱憾了。原來在此前數天老闆C已經 - 是已經 - 辭職不幹，我回來當天就是他的last day，同事A好幾次給我電話卻打不通，到了晚上我看到留這，回電卻沒人接，到他回電我卻去了洗澡沒能接，渾然不知事態嚴重的我，想著：『該不會有什麼重要事找我吧，明天回辦公室再談好了』。第二天回去了，身旁那位女同事L卻告之這一重大變故，於是我火速致電同事A，原來這個時候老闆C已經身在機場，正前往挪威，一如計劃的到當地當visiting professor，兩個多月後才回來，於是我只有無奈的跟他在電話中道別......

他一走，我的研究進度大受影響，首先我要在CSIRO另找一個老闆，給過數次傾談，W願意接手當我的老闆，這也是塞翁失馬，因為她對的fieldwork經驗比老闆C還要豐富，對我有很大幫助。另一邊廂，老闆C臨走前也不忘確保我應有的研究資源得以延續，他跟高層談妥了，我的獎學金及研究經費不受影響，人雖走倒沒有茶涼。

不過，我仍然要為fieldwork的安排四出奔走，這時候名氣極大的老闆J出手，牽頭拉攏另一位老闆 (S，其實不算是我的老闆，只算是我的thesis committee裡，除我兩個老闆以外的第三位成員，也是他們以前的學生)，讓我參與他正準備展開的研究。

一切安排停當，不過魔鬼在細節裡。阿S一方面忙得不可開交，跟我談的機會不多，另方面我也太缺乏相關經驗，有點手足無措。話說我們這項研究是關於澳洲市民對氣勢政策的態度，除了問卷我們還會舉辦小組研討會，讓他們討論，而我們會研究他們的態度轉變、micro-political dynamic，以及其環境價值之特質等。作為一個非本地人，我對如何安排這個研討會實在是有點徬徨，不知從何入手，從十二月以來到三月，跟S同老闆W往還好幾次，也沒什麼大進展，而且負責我的研究資金的行政單位及高層工作效率極低，拖慢了我的進度足足一個月，結果是現在三月底才算有點眉目，但對於如何落實細節，我仍是處於被動，百般無奈。

期間，我除了等待各方回應外無事可做。唯一可做的仍是寫理論文章，我跟同A還有老闆C正在合寫另一篇期刊文章，我為主筆(第一作者)，自問寫得文理清晰、理據縱橫，算是略有小成，同事A及我認為此文當可引起小小波瀾。

此時我仍是無事可做，又只能寫另一篇理論文章，屈指一算這我已正式發表了三篇期刊文章，另外三篇還在評審過程中，兩個完稿待投，現在這一篇是九篇了。想來我的期刊文章數目，可能足以申請以發表文章來取得PhD學位 (比較普遍的是以一篇8萬字左右的長論文)，執筆之時還在考慮。

上個月老闆C回來澳洲短住一個月，主要為搬家而來，他在奧地利找到了一正教授職位，年底到位。這兩個月我先後跟他見面兩次，他說明年或可讓我以visiting PhD student的身份到其任職的大學交流半年，我當然願意，一為跟他多點來往，商討合作機會，二為擴闊人脈，說不定有助在歐洲找工作。

如此一年多過去了，春去秋來，這個初秋時候，一天四季。社交生活淡如水，飲食也是乏善可陳，然而學術生活卻跟天氣一樣起伏交替，錯綜複雜。此段時間正為最難捱的時候，難過也得過，還是期待明年此刻會是身處歐洲某隅優遊自在吧。

The gagged ex- CSIRO economist

The gagged economist and my supervisor, who has now moved to Norway and later Austria. He was in NSW for a seminar on his controversial paper on carbon trading. Here is the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWQ4ENYKZz4

He has ALREADY gone!

What would you think when you are the last one to know your supervisor's resignation? He has ALREADY gone when I get back!! I couldn't even talk to him face-to-face as he was boarding when I finally got contact with him on phone!


The day I was back was his last day. Clive's resignation came with effect in two days. He has planned to relocate to Norway for a visiting professorship a couple of months back, but did not intend to put his resignation on until mid 2010. From what I have heard he got some more pressure from the CSIRO management on his to-be-published paper, plus he suffered from mental stress to a point that led him to seek medical advice. He couldn't afford to stay anymore.

So what will happen to me? My scholarship has been secured. Supervision is not going to be a problem as he is likely to remain in my supervisory panel and someone else down the corridor will be assigned as my CSIRO supervisor mainly for administrative purposes. It is more like he is shifting from being my 'executive' supervisor to a 'non-executive' one. There is possibility that I can use Clive's unused funding for fieldwork. Sounds not too bad!

It wouldn't be a big problem as long as project funding and good project partners could be identified. I hope I can join Clive somewhere in Europe in the later stages of my PhD (as visiting student). Yet it is still frustrating when the one who brought me in has quitted and moved to the other end of the Earth - feel like being abandoned.

Things change

It is aweful when your PhD supervisor decides to leave the organization when your stipend is taken from his research grant. This made (still does) me stressful and at times depressed. Coz it is possible for my scholarship to be suspended although I was told it should be fine.
Yet for sure there will be some changes to my project. I am inclined to stay in ANU and the supervisory panel is likely to remain unchanged. Timing becomes an issue as the extension of the scholarship now becomes uncertain. Also I will be forced to work more independently on a project that can't be done without teamwork. Plus I am still not confident in doing a social experiment in such a different culture given language barriers and unfamiliarity.

I enjoy working alone, but being forced alone is frustrating. Same for social relationships.

做學者跟做Sales有沒有分別?

做學者跟做Sales有沒有分別?

本質上是沒有。

行外人總覺得做學者不吃人間煙火，社會地位高，薪水不俗，工作穩定，而且工作悠閒 – 教教書、寫寫文章就是了。統統不對。放在二、三十年前的話倒不錯，老早簽了長約的有鐵飯碗護身，好不自在。但今時今日新人要在學術界謀一官半職，卻要懂得推銷，『營業額』要達標才能生存。

其實由唸博士開始，我們就已經離不開這個『跑數』式求生遊戲。首先，必須了解『Publications壓倒一切』這個黃金定律。這是你的營業指標，PhD畢業後找不找到工作、往後晉升如何，全都取決於發表了多少篇學術文章、在哪些期刊裡發表，博士論文洋洋10萬字，寫得天花龍鳳也抵不上一篇短短7000字的期刊文章。同理，博士學位是次要，是副產品，主角是期刊文章 (兩個博士學位大概也抵不上兩篇期刊文章!)，論文未寫好就要趕發表，發表有著落，論文未寫好也可以有offer。一篇也沒有嗎? 大概連面試機會也渺茫。教授們都有達標的壓力，不會發表就是不會生蛋的母雞，又或者是雙層魚柳包 - 多舊魚，是冗員，所以不達標就要被照肺，再不長進就被踢走。大學要趕排名，而排名很受校內教授的發表量所影響，沒發表就是沒貢獻，誰容許你只是教教書而已?

那麼發表到底是什麼一回事? 這不是一般向報紙雜誌投稿那麼簡單。過程是寫一篇7000-8000的文章，寄到適合的期刊，然後期刊編輯會找兩至三個行家審閱，他們說行就行，說不行的話就退稿，當然編輯也可以推翻他們的決定，但一般也是以reviewers的意見為主。文章擲地有聲固然是必要條件，英文也要好，文章要層次分明。評審過程中，那些reviewers是匿名的，投稿者不會知道他們是何許人，reviewers也不會知投稿者是誰。Reviewers是非常critical的，意見多半尖酸狠辣，不留情面。小弟幸運地自行發表過兩篇文章，有些人以為這很了不起，但不為人知的是，我被退稿的次數比接納發表的還要多，被退稿的幾次裡，評語都相當相當尖酸刻薄，有些是接近嘲笑的地步，批評我英文不到家我倒沒話可說，畢業自己英語寫作能力有限。背上被插了幾把刀的感覺實在不太好受，但在這行混，被人插是家常便飯，所以面皮要夠厚，心臟要挺得住。

批評其實沒有什麼不合理，畢竟學術就是要批判思考。可惜有些reviewers好像把你當殺父仇人似的，吹毛求疵不在話下，文章裡說了兩句不中聽的說話就會以reviewer之身份大肆蹂躙一番。詹教授跟我說，評審文章很花時間，有空義務評審文章的很多都是閒來沒事做的學者，他們有些是為批評而批評，有沒有毛病都要罵個你狗血淋頭才顯得出自己有本事，不然，你沒問題就是我有問題。當批判成為一個目的就變成批鬥，學術本有門派之分，不同門派互插實屬本份，可是學者不是外人想像中那麼事事客觀，『客觀科學』之說從來都是用來掩護主觀意願，遇到有不對自己門派的多半不會怎樣包容，因為推翻別人就可以讓自己跑出。有人說過現代科學的進化是靠推翻人家的學說而來的，這句話是有道理，卻為盲目相信有單一『真理』存在而付出代價，也為『為批評而批評』這做法提供了動機。

好了，能發表文章是不是可以安枕無憂呢? 妄想。簡單來說，沒40歲也沒飽飯吃。博士畢業生一般要先當兩至三年『後博士研究員』才有機會當上助理教授。『博士後』是一種短期合約職位，主要是當老闆的跟班，做做研究，自由度不高，薪水只有2萬多，沒很多福利，沒雙糧沒花紅，沒晉升機會 – 約滿不會直升助理教授。事實上能不能找到『博士後』也沒有保證，以社會科學學系而言，一個學系通常只有兩三個空缺，二/三流大學更可能只有一個，然而每年博士畢業生往往多於此數，所以是僧多粥少，難怪博士畢業生的失業率比本科畢業還高。一般而言，博士畢業也差不多30歲，再過兩年『博士後』，已經過了而立之年，該穩定下來了吧。不對，好戲還在後頭，助理教授的空缺比博士後更少，就算有名的大學也不會年年請人，說三、四年才請一個也不過份。競爭大不在話下，沒三、四篇發表文章也不用多想，更殘酷的這是一個『三年又三年』的煎熬。新入職的助理教授首六年是合約制，三年review一次，發表量不夠就out，過得三年再review一次，合格就多半會升職，不然就out。當由32歲開始算起，助理教授到38歲才『有機會』坐正 - 加薪和轉長工。人工4萬多，好像不錯，但別忘記在30歲前都是當廉價勞工，萬多元薪水夠吃不夠儲，搞不好留下一屁股債，正正是過得一日得一日，要儲錢結婚生仔卻是有心無力。還有，38歲有得留低固然要謝主隆恩，沒有的話怎辦，博士學位在大學以外有屁用 (尤其是在香港)，由低做起當個跑腿research assistant會不會太丟臉? 去當中學教師也嫌老吧，唸社會科學的『楂兜』的風險更高。有不少人轉去當instructor，就是專責教書那類講師，薪水不高，沒啥晉升機會，不會自動升上助理教授，永遠是合約制，隨時被兜走，沒保障，比中學教師還不如。十年寒窗得個桔，仔細老婆嫩，怎辦?

學術圈很講究關係和學術血統，唸博士要年年去研討會不真的為了發表什麼，而是拉關係，正面點說是找合作機會，也要面皮厚，要巴結明星教授，巴結期刊編輯。論文指導老師也不能得罪，每一個學術領域都劃分了無數sub-fields，研究範圍細分之下，變得既專且窄。能做指導老師的一般有一定經驗，而由於圈子小，老師亦往往都為行內人所認識，開罪了老師就等於在該圈子裡留下惡名。學術界極重視師長推薦，美國大學更如是，如果老師對你不多關照，推薦信沒寫好，大概求職時也會處處踫壁。

工作悠閒? 發夢，如果算時薪的話可能比文員只好一點點。剛才說合格的意思據說是一年發表最少兩篇質量不錯的文章，這要求在社會科學界裡這也不算過份。可是要發表一篇文章要過五關斬六將，嘔心瀝血的嘔出來的，寫學術文章跟寫專欄文章差天共地，我算寫東西寫得快了，認真寫也往往要花上一天才寫得一頁 400-500字左右，更別說前後預備資料和文章編輯工作，要由頭寫起7000字去投稿，前後最少足足要用一整個月時間。但當學者還不是寫文章就行，還要教書，現在的大學生態度惡劣，教書大概也是令人嘔算的工作吧 (對我而言是)。還有，研究資金不會從天上掉下來，教授要錢就要寫proposal去fight，完事後可能還要寫一堆report和presentation向米飯班主 (提供研究資金的機構)交代，過程相當費時。除此之外，還有林林總總的校內行政工作，例如收生，管理undergrad那班馬騮相信是十分傷神，最好也搞個碩士班來吸水 (不然怎樣養起教授們)，結果晚上休息時間又奉獻了給老闆們 (碩士學生)，還有要不停看學術文章來確保不會脫節，我認真全神看一篇大概要3小時。結果，一個助理教授最好朝七晚十，周末也上班，多勞多得，不勞就早抖，壓力之下只好拼命，不成功便成仁，陰功。

最後就是社會地位，不用多說，隨著大學數目上升，教授數量多就變得不稀罕。在老一輩心中或許光環仍在，可是年輕一點的卻可能不以為然，其中一個原因或許是金錢因素，年輕教授薪金低，找工作不容易，工作也不穩定，相比起同樣是大學或碩士畢業、身處熱門行業中的才俊猶有不及。30多歲還只拿2萬多月薪，人家十年前已經有這個數目了，如此怎教人不看低一線? 唸社會科學的有時要去『乞』數據，找這個幫忙找那個疏通，臉皮不厚不成，以前我當研究助理時，要去學校跟一些老師聯絡來收集數據(就是找學生做survey)，我那位教授上司以前當副校長，比這些老師高幾班，可是為了要他們幫忙，對他們也不免有點低聲下氣，老師有怨言也只好硬食，不然以後人家不再給面子就麻煩了。我自己做的那個survey，要做上門訪問，也是見盡人情冷暖，要看面色，香港大學又如何? 學者要走入民間，放下身段是理所當然，也正因如此，不在高高在上。

很多當博士/學者的都是外表風光，其實是啞子吃黃蓮，有苦自己知，博士生更是不消說。以前博士畢業就等於升上神枱，現在則是被趕入鬥獸場的開始，狗咬狗的慘況其實不異於市場。博士學位既是入場劵，也是負累，成也蕭何，敗也蕭何，實際價值比MBA還低。所以，學術之路其實是相當tough的，沒有『雖千萬人吾往矣』的心態的話，請三思。

'This is really wonderful'

The best thing to an aspiring scholar is not money, but recognition. Thanks Li Ka Shing.


**************************************
Dear Mr LO Yu Hong,

I am pleased to inform you that you have been selected as one of the recipients of the Li Ka Shing Prizes (2007-2008).

The Li Ka Shing Prizes are set up by using part of a generous donation from Dr. Li Ka Shing. The Prizes are awarded annually on the basis of academic excellence, four for the PhD theses and two for the MPhil theses. The Prizes, in the form of gold medals (for desk display), shall in each year be awarded to graduates from within the two faculty groups – Group A, comprising PhD and MPhil graduates from the Faculties of Architecture, Arts, Business & Economics, Education, Law and Social Sciences; and Group B, comprising PhD and MPhil graduates from the Faculties of Dentistry, Engineering, Medicine and Science.

[..................]

May I take this opportunity to congratulate you for winning the Prize. I look forward to seeing you at the award presentation ceremony.

Yours sincerely,
(Miss) Anna Wong
Executive Officer
Graduate School
The University of Hong Kong
******************************************

Dear Alex,

I am delighted to learn of the outcome of our nomination. This is really wonderful. I offer my warmest congratulations on your outstanding achievement. We look forward to shaking your hand at the ceremony.

Regards,
Jim

C Y Jim
Department of Geography
The University of Hong Kong

Economics in diversity

'Decoupling the concept of monetary values from economic monism must be complemented by correspondingly decoupling the norms of value articulation from the established value hierarchy whose viability is causally interdependent on the elicited values. Logically it is impossible to include all types of values; a more fruitful way of thinking is to repudiate institution that would exclude any. To paraphrase Samuel Tilden (cited in Dewey, 1954), the means by which a hierarchy comes to be a hierarchy is the more important thing. The monistic economic value is sustained by, and in turn sustains, the monistic structure of economics. Merely diversifying the ends to be pursued is not sufficient to addressing value pluralism. '

This is a paragraph in my literature review. The idea is theoretically oriented and complex. This is the central theme of my thesis, which embodies the notion of 'economics in diversity'. I have a feeling that this is a quite important concept to dealing with our current challenge, that is, ecological limits, risks, and uncertainties, and all associated social impacts. The linkage is not very clear to me at the moment. But I think the 'targets' of the sustainability movement are beyond science and human's selfishness. The core issues, in fact, revolve around ethical diversity.

Maybe I can write this up as a book some day??!

'English needs work'

I need to work harder on my English writting. This is a comment from Clive after he read my journal submission (he was 'accidentally' asked to adjudicate my paper which the journal editor was unable to make a decision because the two reviewees' comments went to extremes. I was surprised when he told me he got my article from the editor. Actually I has sent him for comment long before formally submiting it but he was too busy to take a look):

'I suggested restructuring a bit in the end because of the repetition. The paper felt long, which is an indicator that it is not flowing as it should. I think all your points are basically valid but they could come across better.

The English needs work and unfortunately is a major distraction. Your basic style is good but gets let down by various errors. You will see where in my corrections. No journal will accept papers with these errors so you either need an English speaking helper or to learn yourself. You might want to consider co-authorship unless the latter works for you.'

Actually, Prof Jim, my MPhil supervisor, had made a similar comment on my thesis - verbose and ambiguous, and suggested me to work harder on English. I got even more harsh comments on my rejected papers - one reviewer described it as 'awful'. Have to admit that my English writting is not good - by academic standard. Really need some professional English editing service next time when I sumbit something for publication............

Thesis proposal seminar passed

Passed my thesis proposal seminar! With generally positive comments. Only a handful of people came (coz of the location & lack of advertisement), but almost everyone asked questions (more means good). Yet I think I still need to learn to handle Q&A better.

Now ready to submit my proposal, and move on to the next stage. The next challenge is the research design. Outlined in my proposal but there are still lots of practical issues and uncertainties unsolved. Especially this is a medium-size project and we work with another team in CSIRO. Means it'll get more complex as things unfold. Will fix them in the coming months.

Another ongoing task is writing the literature review. It's really time-consuming, but exciting. I plan to produce at least two publications from this review. One to be published with Clive. My target is get the first draft done by September this year.

How many economists does it take to change a lightbulb?

How many economists does it take to change a lightbulb?

Two: One to change the bulb and one to assume the existence of a ladder.
Eight: One to screw in the light bulb and seven to hold everything else constant.
None: They are all waiting for the invisible hand.

Alcon and Solarz: 'The Autistic Economist'
Yale Economic Review, Summer 2006

PhD Proposal

For some reasons, I didn't add anything during the past 5 months. 5 months already...time flies.
And for some reasons, I need a change. Change? Yes, I can.
Got my PhD proposal finished. Post here to mark the milestone. But abstract only, the whole document has >5000 words (pretty long as a proposal)


***********************************************************

The Normative and Practical Content of Deliberative Monetary Valuation:
An Investigation into the Ideological Beliefs Influencing and Subjective Factors Associated with the Articulation of Environmental Values in Deliberative Settings


PhD Research Proposal

Alex Lo
Political Science Program, Research School of Social Sciences,
The Australian National University


Abstract
Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) is a hybrid approach built upon the theory of deliberative democracy. It seeks to articulate money values of non-marketed public goods from small group deliberation. Yet current practice falls short of theoretical coherence and appear at odds with the deliberative political ideals. This creates a thin and fragile integrative basis for value plurality. A study is proposed to assess the present state of knowledge and examine the potential of a political model. This will involve separate investigation of the perceptions of practitioners and citizen deliberators concerning DMV processes and outcomes. The study will ascertain the ways in which deliberative value is defined in theory and its meanings in actual deliberation. For the former, data will be sought from a practitioners survey based on Q methodology. Deliberative forums are being planned for the latter. Two discussion groups are designed in accordance with democratic and decision-analytic principles respectively. They will be compared to distinguish the political strand of DMV from its more common counterpart of analytic deliberation. Two groups of local citizens will participate in a series of discussions about a water planning issue in Australia. Verbal protocols will be employed for analyzing the participant interviews to understand how people make sense of the valuation questions. Findings are expected to shed light on the principles and roles of DMV, and the potential of applying verbal protocol analysis to DMV research.

"Don't Become a Scientist!"

This is an article I came across elsewhere in the forum. It's about early academic career, one of unsecure, unstable, and underpaid. Worse, reresearch budget cuts are coming. Even worse, there are traditionally fewer vacancies in social sciences than science.

-----------------------------------------
Don't Become a Scientist!
Jonathan I. Katz
Professor of Physics
Washington University, St. Louis, Mo.


Are you thinking of becoming a scientist? Do you want to uncover themysteries of nature, perform experiments or carry out calculations to learnhow the world works? Forget it!


Science is fun and exciting. The thrill of discovery is unique. If you aresmart, ambitious and hard working you should major in science as anundergraduate. But that is as far as you should take it. After graduation,you will have to deal with the real world. That means that you should noteven consider going to graduate school in science. Do something elseinstead: medical school, law school, computers or engineering, or somethingelse which appeals to you.


Why am I (a tenured professor of physics) trying to discourage you fromfollowing a career path which was successful for me? Because times havechanged (I received my Ph.D. in 1973, and tenure in 1976). American scienceno longer offers a reasonable career path. If you go to graduate school inscience it is in the expectation of spending your working life doingscientific research, using your ingenuity and curiosity to solve importantand interesting problems. You will almost certainly be disappointed,probably when it is too late to choose another career.

American universities train roughly twice as many Ph.D.s as there are jobsfor them. When something, or someone, is a glut on the market, the pricedrops. In the case of Ph.D. scientists, the reduction in price takes theform of many years spent in ``holding pattern'' postdoctoral jobs.Permanent jobs don't pay much less than they used to, but instead of obtaininga real job two years after the Ph.D. (as was typical 25 years ago) mostyoung scientists spend five, ten, or more years as postdocs. They have noprospect of permanent employment and often must obtain a new postdoctoralposition and move every two years. For many more details consult the YoungScientists' Network or read the account in the May, 2001 issue of theWashington Monthly.

As examples, consider two of the leading candidates for a recent AssistantProfessorship in my department. One was 37, ten years out of graduateschool (he didn't get the job). The leading candidate, whom everyone thinksis brilliant, was 35, seven years out of graduate school. Only then was heoffered his first permanent job (that's not tenure, just the possibility ofit six years later, and a step off the treadmill of looking for a new jobevery two years). The latest example is a 39 year old candidate for anotherAssistant Professorship; he has published 35 papers. In contrast, a doctortypically enters private practice at 29, a lawyer at 25 and makes partner at31, and a computer scientist with a Ph.D. has a very good job at 27(computer science and engineering are the few fields in which industrialdemand makes it sensible to get a Ph.D.). Anyone with the intelligence,ambition and willingness to work hard to succeed in science can also succeedin any of these other professions.

Typical postdoctoral salaries begin at $27,000 annually in the biologicalsciences and about $35,000 in the physical sciences (graduate studentstipends are less than half these figures). Can you support a family onthat income? It suffices for a young couple in a small apartment, though I know of one physicist whose wife left him because she was tired of repeatedly moving with little prospect of settling down. When you are in your thirties you will need more: a house in a good school district andall the other necessities of ordinary middle class life. Science is a profession, not a religious vocation, and does not justify an oath of poverty or celibacy.

Of course, you don't go into science to get rich. So you choose not to goto medical or law school, even though a doctor or lawyer typically earns twoto three times as much as a scientist (one lucky enough to have a goodsenior-level job). I made that choice too. I became a scientist in orderto have the freedom to work on problems which interest me. But you probablywon't get that freedom. As a postdoc you will work on someone else's ideas,and may be treated as a technician rather than as an independentcollaborator. Eventually, you will probably be squeezed out of scienceentirely. You can get a fine job as a computer programmer, but why not dothis at 22, rather than putting up with a decade of misery in the scientificjob market first? The longer you spend in science the harder you will find it to leave, and the less attractive you will be to prospective employers inother fields.
Perhaps you are so talented that you can beat the postdoc trap; someuniversity (there are hardly any industrial jobs in the physical sciences)will be so impressed with you that you will be hired into a tenure track position two years out of graduate school. Maybe. But the general cheapening of scientific labor means that even the most talented stay on the postdoctoral treadmill for a very long time; consider the job candidates described above. And many who appear to be very talented, with grades and recommendations to match, later find that the competition of research is more difficult, or at least different, and that they must struggle with the rest.

Suppose you do eventually obtain a permanent job, perhaps a tenured professorship. The struggle for a job is now replaced by a struggle for grant support, and again there is a glut of scientists. Now you spend your time writing proposals rather than doing research. Worse, because yourproposals are judged by your competitors you cannot follow your curiosity,but must spend your effort and talents on anticipating and deflectingcriticism rather than on solving the important scientific problems.They're not the same thing: you cannot put your past successes in aproposal, because they are finished work, and your new ideas, howeveroriginal and clever, are still unproven. It is proverbial that originalideas are the kiss of death for a proposal; because they have not yet beenproved to work (after all, that is what you are proposing to do) they canbe, and will be, rated poorly. Having achieved the promised land, you findthat it is not what you wanted after all.

What can be done? The first thing for any young person (which means anyonewho does not have a permanent job in science) to do is to pursue anothercareer. This will spare you the misery of disappointed expectations.Young Americans have generally woken up to the bad prospects and absence ofa reasonable middle class career path in science and are deserting it.If you haven't yet, then join them. Leave graduate school to people fromIndia and China, for whom the prospects at home are even worse. I haveknown more people whose lives have been ruined by getting a Ph.D. in physicsthan by drugs.

If you are in a position of leadership in science then you should try topersuade the funding agencies to train fewer Ph.D.s. The glut of scientistsis entirely the consequence of funding policies (almost all graduateeducation is paid for by federal grants). The funding agencies arebemoaning the scarcity of young people interested in science when theythemselves caused this scarcity by destroying science as a career. Theycould reverse this situation by matching the number trained to the demand,but they refuse to do so, or even to discuss the problem seriously (for manyyears the NSF propagated a dishonest prediction of a coming shortage ofscientists, and most funding agencies still act as if this were true). Theresult is that the best young people, who should go into science, sensiblyrefuse to do so, and the graduate schools are filled with weak Americanstudents and with foreigners lured by the American student visa.


Source is here:

http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html

Read two theoretical writings

本來這個月是用來閉關苦讀，可以種種事情令我不能集中，總覺得不在狀態

不過，在過去的三個星期也能夠把兩本對我的工作比較重要著作看過大半，我的目的很明確：在開始研究之前要先把其理論脈絡用清楚，不然無法知道所得的結果在學術上有何意義，更無法從根本地解答當前問題。


第一本是John O'Neill 的"Market, Deliberation and Environment" (Routledge, 2007)
雖然這本書的內容都十分有趣而且重要，但大都已經被其他人及作者自己在其他articles討論過，這本書似乎是作者自己的論文總結，沒什麼創新觀點。主要是圍繞經濟價值的謬誤，及deliberative democracy的優劣。當中有一點是值得深思，有些人 - 包括Clive和我 - 都主張用deliberative institution去articulate 環境價值，即是透過半公開、實驗形式的小組討論去為某一環境物品定價，然而O'Neill卻似乎反對一切定價行為，他所提出的論據不無道理，例如很多公共財產都有道德價值，根本不適宜被冠上幣值。但我在想是不是一定是all or nothing，到底問題是出在幣值本身，還是它背後理論假設及運作模式? 是否可以將後二者來點改變，然後重新定義環境價值(monetary)? 有沒有中間路線呢?



第二本是我supervisor，另一位John，John Dryzek的"Discursive Democract" (Cambridge, 1990)
此書為該領域的奠基著作之一，它提出了一套新的民主理論，此一理論即為上文提及的deliberative institution 的基礎。大意是公共決策該由collective, public communication而始，而非individualistic, aggregative voting，再簡單點說就是talk before vote，視public dialogue為最主要的決策原素，而非次於majority voting。另一個重要觀點是(inter)subjectivism取代objectivism，就是說在政策層面上，科學化、重結果的reasoning不應被用作處理公共資源的絕對準則，這兩者都或多或多了假設了某種特定的價值觀，例如經濟學裡的『效率』，取而代之的是communicative rationality，其主要主張為: the only authority is better arguments (not material gains)。這套理論最大優點是容納多元價值，但我仍是沒法從中找到適當的理論途徑去解讀從deliberative institution所產生的monetary value，即是以group的形式、經過商議及專家討論後所同意的willingness-to-pay是代表著什麼? (WTP in market is price, which is easy to understand)。另外deliberative institution又是否exclusive of strategic reasoning? 但別忘記有時候strategic reasoning也是多元價值的表達形式之一。

在我的研究領域內，提出、測試及解釋可容納多元價值的制度是一個新方向，但多元價值卻與傳統經濟系統合不來，要經濟利益老是屈於其他價值之下也不合民主原則，且是難於實行，用一套independent-of-all的approach i.e. communicative rationalization似乎比較合理，但如何可以做到? 如何解讀?

Neverheless, I can see there is one possible way to interpret. It stems from the theory of communicative action by Jurgen Habermas, the leading philosophy in 20th century (from which Dryzek and others developed the idea of deliberative democracy). Communicative rationality is that it is tied to subject-subject relation between interacting individuals, rather than subject-object relation between monologically acting individuals presumed by instrument rationality underpinning economics. So, value from deliberative institutions should be understood as a matter of intersubjectivity, not exclusively objectivity nor subjectivity. It is the interaction among people as a group that forms the value, not isolated individuals; not uncontested economic nor ethical interests, but the interplay between them.

Oral exam completed

The oral exam for my MPhil was successfully completed. I presented for less than 10 minutes and answered the questions from the examiners for the rest of the time. The whole process took one hour. My supervisor was there as an observer - not allowed to ask questions.

The examiners were nice, and they all gave me very positive comments. No really tough questions, more like casual talk than examination. Minor changes to my thesis are required, I think I can fix it an hour.

I was told that the department will nominate my work to the Li Ka Shing Prize - to the best MPhil thesis from all non lab-based faculties, since both of the two examiners have checked the 'Excellent' box in my assessment form. I think the selection process would be very competitive as I will have to compete with not just graduates of this year but also the previous one - it is awarded for every two years.