6 ms·

Off topic: This seems to be an odd emphasis on the word "good". Can a native English speaker confirm?

by sawwit 11y ago

dchapp 11y ago
I agree that use of "good" is questionable here. One would think that without the skills mentioned, one wouldn't be a theoretical physicist at all. (Is every person who lacks these skills a "bad theoretical physicist"? Only in a vacuous sense.) That said, I think we should interpret "how to become a good theoretical physicist" as "how to gain the competencies that are expected of s theoretical physicist."
- Retra 11y ago
  That's is what he means by good: one with enough competence in the field to do actually useful work. If you manage to do useful work in physics, that work could translate into a Nobel Prize just as easily as any other useful work. A bad theoretical physicist is one who only understands enough to sound smart to their friends. AKA, a crank.
tokenadult 11y ago
The author of the submitted website is a native speaker of Dutch, but his English looks fine to me (a native speaker of English). I think his choice of emphasis, which I didn't try to reproduce when I submitted the website here on Hacker News, makes the point that people can become mere amateurs or even cranks[1] about theoretical physics unless they prepare carefully. I have seen a few examples of theoretical physics cranks[2] over the years. [1] I mean "crank" in the second sense shown at the Merriam-Webster dictionary site. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crank http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crank [2] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/in-physics-telling-cranks-from-experts-aint-easy/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/in-physics-t... http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/01/10/a-profound-misunderstanding-of-cranks/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/01/10/a-profound-misu...
jamessb 11y ago
The emphasis is because he wrote two articles: "How to become a good theoretical physicist" (http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theorist.html http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theorist.html), and "How to become a bad theoretical physicist" (http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theoristbad.html http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theoristbad.html). Later, the advice on how to become "good" was re-designed to look better, but split the content across multiple pages (http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gadda001/goodtheorist/ http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gadda001/goodtheorist/).
iorrus 11y ago
I am not sure that you will become a 'good' theoretical physicist after reading those. (I have knowledge of most of the items he mentions) You will have a good overview of many mathematical tools that are used in physics but that's about it. Personally I prefer to read the stuff the 'bad' theoretical physicists write. Read Penrose or Bohm for what 'good' theoretical physicists think of existing orthodoxies and their many failings.

Off topic: This seems to be an odd emphasis on the word "good". Can a native English speaker confirm?

by sawwit 11y ago

Off topic: This seems to be an odd emphasis on the word "good". Can a native English speaker confirm?

I agree that use of "good" is questionable here. One would think that without the skills mentioned, one wouldn't be a theoretical physicist at all. (Is every person who lacks these skills a "bad theoretical physicist"? Only in a vacuous sense.) That said, I think we should interpret "how to become a good theoretical physicist" as "how to gain the competencies that are expected of s theoretical physicist."

Retra 11y ago
That's is what he means by good: one with enough competence in the field to do actually useful work. If you manage to do useful work in physics, that work could translate into a Nobel Prize just as easily as any other useful work. A bad theoretical physicist is one who only understands enough to sound smart to their friends. AKA, a crank.

tokenadult 11y ago

The author of the submitted website is a native speaker of Dutch, but his English looks fine to me (a native speaker of English). I think his choice of emphasis, which I didn't try to reproduce when I submitted the website here on Hacker News, makes the point that people can become mere amateurs or even cranks[1] about theoretical physics unless they prepare carefully. I have seen a few examples of theoretical physics cranks[2] over the years. [1] I mean "crank" in the second sense shown at the Merriam-Webster dictionary site. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crank http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crank [2] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/in-physics-telling-cranks-from-experts-aint-easy/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/in-physics-t... http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/01/10/a-profound-misunderstanding-of-cranks/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/01/10/a-profound-misu...

jamessb 11y ago

The emphasis is because he wrote two articles: "How to become a good theoretical physicist" (http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theorist.html http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theorist.html), and "How to become a bad theoretical physicist" (http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theoristbad.html http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theoristbad.html). Later, the advice on how to become "good" was re-designed to look better, but split the content across multiple pages (http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gadda001/goodtheorist/ http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gadda001/goodtheorist/).

iorrus 11y ago

I am not sure that you will become a 'good' theoretical physicist after reading those. (I have knowledge of most of the items he mentions) You will have a good overview of many mathematical tools that are used in physics but that's about it. Personally I prefer to read the stuff the 'bad' theoretical physicists write. Read Penrose or Bohm for what 'good' theoretical physicists think of existing orthodoxies and their many failings.