4 ms·

The crucial difference is that an amateur can provide a meaningful contribution to an open-source software project while the same is unlikely in (modern) scien

by d0mine 11y ago

The crucial difference is that an amateur can provide a meaningful contribution to an open-source software project while the same is unlikely in (modern) science. You need years of intense studying even to understand the current state of the art in a chosen scientific field. Experiments require more money too.

nl 11y ago
As someone who has fallen into a transition from software engineering to science I think I can say this is mostly wrong. It seems to me that any given field of "science" isn't any harder than dropping into a new area of software engineering. There's a lot to learn, sure, but there's a lot to do as well and there are areas where an complete rank amateur can make significant contributions. It's still true that every day I discover something I have no idea at all about. But it seems that this is fairly normal in science - people know a lot about a single specialized area and not much outside it.
- d0mine 11y ago
  > I think I can say this is mostly wrong. There are 3 sentences in my comment. What specific claim do you consider to be wrong and what is your evidence?
  - nl 11y ago
    All 3 The crucial difference is that an amateur can provide a meaningful contribution to an open-source software project while the same is unlikely in (modern) science. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/meet-the-amateur-comet-hunter-who-out-gazes-the-big-telescopes http://motherboard.vice.com/read/meet-the-amateur-comet-hunt... http://io9.gizmodo.com/5841287/the-story-of-the-woman-who-discovered-new-species-in-her-garden http://io9.gizmodo.com/5841287/the-story-of-the-woman-who-di... You need years of intense studying even to understand the current state of the art in a chosen scientific field. From personal experience, this isn't the case. But you'll complain about citations, so: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160313-mathematicians-discover-prime-conspiracy/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160313-mathematicians-disco... Experiments require more money too. See the examples provided above.
cooper12 11y ago
I disagree. There's no reason that properly educated and briefed volunteers can't do a lot of the same work. Just look at citizen scientists. [0] There have been studies that have shown them to be just as effective as experts. [1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_science [1]: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0069958 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

by d0mine 11y ago

nl 11y ago

As someone who has fallen into a transition from software engineering to science I think I can say this is mostly wrong. It seems to me that any given field of "science" isn't any harder than dropping into a new area of software engineering. There's a lot to learn, sure, but there's a lot to do as well and there are areas where an complete rank amateur can make significant contributions. It's still true that every day I discover something I have no idea at all about. But it seems that this is fairly normal in science - people know a lot about a single specialized area and not much outside it.

d0mine 11y ago
> I think I can say this is mostly wrong. There are 3 sentences in my comment. What specific claim do you consider to be wrong and what is your evidence?
- nl 11y ago
  All 3 The crucial difference is that an amateur can provide a meaningful contribution to an open-source software project while the same is unlikely in (modern) science. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/meet-the-amateur-comet-hunter-who-out-gazes-the-big-telescopes http://motherboard.vice.com/read/meet-the-amateur-comet-hunt... http://io9.gizmodo.com/5841287/the-story-of-the-woman-who-discovered-new-species-in-her-garden http://io9.gizmodo.com/5841287/the-story-of-the-woman-who-di... You need years of intense studying even to understand the current state of the art in a chosen scientific field. From personal experience, this isn't the case. But you'll complain about citations, so: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160313-mathematicians-discover-prime-conspiracy/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160313-mathematicians-disco... Experiments require more money too. See the examples provided above.

cooper12 11y ago

I disagree. There's no reason that properly educated and briefed volunteers can't do a lot of the same work. Just look at citizen scientists. [0] There have been studies that have shown them to be just as effective as experts. [1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_science [1]: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0069958 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....