MavrickWeirdo
First Post
That would explain why scientists make such a big deal about taking baths.Umbran said:
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Scientists Shout Out!
- Thread starter fuindordm
- Start date
physicscarp
Explorer
bolen said:
I believe I stopped by after your seminar and mentioned I had seen you post on ENWorld. It was an interesting talk, and Bill Komp referred to it throughout our General Relativity course during the spring.
Rystil Arden
First Post
I marked other. I'm pursuing my Masters in Computer Science and currently researching Artificial Intelligence. It was a close call between choosing 'Other' or 'Engineering', but in the end, I felt that 'Other' was more representative of my specialty, since it isn't really engineering. That said, technically the title of my Masters degree is "Masters in Engineering", but that is just a technicality that separates the submatricing MIT undergrads from the outsiders who come for grad school (They get the Masters in Science).
fuindordm
Adventurer
Observations on Science
Once a scientist, always a scientist. Science is a mode of thought, not an activity. If you've grown into the habit of examining data of any kind (including CNN, for example) with a critical eye, if you are capable of changing your opinions when faced with a new argument, if you believe that human intelligence and industry can uncover important truths... then you are still a scientist no matter what your work is.
More and more of the research performed today advances knowledge by only an infinitesimal amount, if at all. The really important discoveries are due to the combined efforts of a huge collaboration--dozens or hundreds of scientists working together to design and launch a new satellite, or solve the problems of nuclear fusion, or sequence the human genome. The kind of incremental research that gets done in universities by a professor and their student is important, but definitely incremental. Its main obstacle is dissemination; even if a new technique or result is clearly superior, the result may be ignored by the larger community unless it is agressively marketed by conferences and invited talks.
On a related note, the current support system for research strongly discourages scientists to broaden their interests. The pressures of getting tenure depend on the number of publications rather than their quality, especially since in most universities none of the other professors in your department will have the expertise to judge the relative importance of your work for themselves. As a result, would-be professors develop a niche and stick to it, as this is the easiest way to churn out papers and make a name for yourself. Many of the papers that result are almost useless and deservedly ignored; once you've mastered the 'hammer' technique, every problem looks like a 'nail'. You can apply your technique in twenty different situations and churn out a ton of publications, but most of these results are relatively unimportant. You're just protecting your niche and taking advantage of it.
An unfortunate side effect is that there are a lot of scientists out there who stay in their niche. Related results are ignored because incorporating them would require too much investment and slow their production, and conferences are attended just to showcase one's own results and perhaps deride those of others. It's well known that the best research is done by young scientists, often while they're working on their degrees. At this stage, they have nothing to lose! I submit, however, that older researchers could do much more interesting science if the community supported efforts to diversify and communicate, rather than rewarding overspecialization.
Many, many people are interested in science, but scientists do not do enough to promote a scientific mindset. One can blame the educational system, the short-sightedness of politicians, and many other things--but those in charge are not scientists. You can't expect a Jew to spread the word of Christianity, and you can't expect the average politician to promote the cause of science for its own sake. College presidents push science at the expense of other departments not because they believe in its intrinsic value, but because universities can skim off between 30 and 50% of the grant money it brings in. If you are a scientist, you must also be a teacher--not in a school or university, but in your daily life. You must demonstrate the scientific mode of thought at every opportunity, and show people that it is more useful than magical thinking, wishful thinking, or rationalization.
Imagine a world where everyone has absorbed the principle lesson of science: that your most cherished beliefs about the world are only beliefs, which may need to be changed if you encounter something that contradicts them.
Once a scientist, always a scientist. Science is a mode of thought, not an activity. If you've grown into the habit of examining data of any kind (including CNN, for example) with a critical eye, if you are capable of changing your opinions when faced with a new argument, if you believe that human intelligence and industry can uncover important truths... then you are still a scientist no matter what your work is.
More and more of the research performed today advances knowledge by only an infinitesimal amount, if at all. The really important discoveries are due to the combined efforts of a huge collaboration--dozens or hundreds of scientists working together to design and launch a new satellite, or solve the problems of nuclear fusion, or sequence the human genome. The kind of incremental research that gets done in universities by a professor and their student is important, but definitely incremental. Its main obstacle is dissemination; even if a new technique or result is clearly superior, the result may be ignored by the larger community unless it is agressively marketed by conferences and invited talks.
On a related note, the current support system for research strongly discourages scientists to broaden their interests. The pressures of getting tenure depend on the number of publications rather than their quality, especially since in most universities none of the other professors in your department will have the expertise to judge the relative importance of your work for themselves. As a result, would-be professors develop a niche and stick to it, as this is the easiest way to churn out papers and make a name for yourself. Many of the papers that result are almost useless and deservedly ignored; once you've mastered the 'hammer' technique, every problem looks like a 'nail'. You can apply your technique in twenty different situations and churn out a ton of publications, but most of these results are relatively unimportant. You're just protecting your niche and taking advantage of it.
An unfortunate side effect is that there are a lot of scientists out there who stay in their niche. Related results are ignored because incorporating them would require too much investment and slow their production, and conferences are attended just to showcase one's own results and perhaps deride those of others. It's well known that the best research is done by young scientists, often while they're working on their degrees. At this stage, they have nothing to lose! I submit, however, that older researchers could do much more interesting science if the community supported efforts to diversify and communicate, rather than rewarding overspecialization.
Many, many people are interested in science, but scientists do not do enough to promote a scientific mindset. One can blame the educational system, the short-sightedness of politicians, and many other things--but those in charge are not scientists. You can't expect a Jew to spread the word of Christianity, and you can't expect the average politician to promote the cause of science for its own sake. College presidents push science at the expense of other departments not because they believe in its intrinsic value, but because universities can skim off between 30 and 50% of the grant money it brings in. If you are a scientist, you must also be a teacher--not in a school or university, but in your daily life. You must demonstrate the scientific mode of thought at every opportunity, and show people that it is more useful than magical thinking, wishful thinking, or rationalization.
Imagine a world where everyone has absorbed the principle lesson of science: that your most cherished beliefs about the world are only beliefs, which may need to be changed if you encounter something that contradicts them.
Numion
First Post
I work with the title "research scientist" in the finnish state research center. The team I work in does reliability and decision analyses. I mostly do reliability (or risk) analysis for nuclear power plants. I've got a masters degree in operations research.
And hell yes I answer "scientist" when someone asks me what I do
Never seems to impress the ladies ..
And hell yes I answer "scientist" when someone asks me what I do
Never seems to impress the ladies ..
Similar Threads
