5 ms·

I had a similar thought about the hard sciences (physics graduate dropout) and the inaccessibility of hard sciences to amateurs. Then I moved to the desert and

I had a similar thought about the hard sciences (physics graduate dropout) and the inaccessibility of hard sciences to amateurs. Then I moved to the desert and got interested in geology and much to my surprise learned there's all sort of stuff in geology that is available. It's the result of the need to physically go look at rocks (at least for structural). I'm currently working on a new description of the strata at the end of my street because the highest resolution stratigraphic map fails to correctly delineate at least two units of bedrock - eg the map does not show them, but they appear to be present. To figure it out, I've had to take several road trips to compare my neighborhood rock to the exposed units in those locations. I find it quite fun and entertaining. Meanwhile, a colleague of mine found a new species of dinosaur using a radiometric detector he designed and got a patent on (https://ktar.com/story/4298984/arizona-volunteers-unearth-75-million-year-old-dinosaur-in-new-mexico/ https://ktar.com/story/4298984/arizona-volunteers-unearth-75...). There's still some real science out there if you want it. :)

godelski 3y ago
I'm not sure I'd put geology on the same level as say physics. Similarly I wouldn't put astronomy and astrophysics at the same level. This is not to say that there aren't many problems that can be solved by amateurs, but that the utility is quite disproportionate. I also wouldn't say that soft sciences aren't "real", but rather that they have higher rates of error due to the lack of precision and mathematical theory. But I also wouldn't say that you need a degree to contribute to any of the hard sciences. The formal education's utilities mainly lie in guidance, structure, connections, and probably most importantly, the ability to dedicate your full time to your education. Being able to ask someone for help is a significant accelerator. All the math you need to get through a bachelor's, and generally even a masters, is available via 20+ year old textbooks. The PhD is a lot of self study too, and a lot of isolation. But at that point you should have a reasonable idea of direction, although getting lost is common and not necessarily a bad thing. It's probably becoming much easier to do this too given that not only are lectures and piratable textbooks are online, but so are the whole educational structure of a degree, which prevents the amateur from getting lost. Honestly, I think one of the biggest leaps our species will make will happen when we reach post scarcity. Either we'll be glued to the screens or we'll all have the freedom to pursue our passions. Having the ability to dedicate all your time to your education, art, or whatever without worry about your basic needs is quite liberating (even more than school). Maybe even a large social split between the groups. But only time will tell.
- rednerrus 3y ago
  The same things that create utility in the hard sciences are a liability because they limit creativity. You put a lot a risk by looking foolish.
  - godelski 3y ago
    I actually disagree with this. Science requires a substantial amount of creativity. In fact, they are necessary. The nature of breakthroughs requisite thinking outside the box and breaking from convention. What I would say are real limits to creativity are the arbitrary and absurd evaluation metrics we use. Publish or perish paradigm encourages quick work rather than good work, which correlates with a decrease of novelty and substance. Makes the process more incremental. It also encourages railroading as exploration requires more time. The review process also exacerbates these problems, as the system is not actually aligned with the goals. They are arbitrary noisy filters rather than quality filters, and we have substantial evidence that, putting it nicely, reviewers are good at identifying bad works but not good at identifying good works (i.e. default to reject). This causes one to continually rework a project rather than moving on or even making it better, as the feedback generally isn't about how to make the work better and each set of reviewers wants to add more and more. The pursuit of novelty is also not only fundamentally anti-scientific but the basis of an existential crisis. To get funding or to pass review, we must be creative in convincing reviewers that we are clever while ideas generally far more obvious after they are revealed to you (regardless of lack of prior works). The need to innovate also prevents replication, which is the basis of science! It is far more difficult, often nearly impossible, to get funding or even approval to replicate works. Science is the process of ruling things out, not confirming things. Each replication has its own set of noise and biases, and this stochastic nature helps reveal hidden confounders. It is also quite essential to the learning process and failing to perform this task results in information being passed like a game of telephone. But by nature, science is anti-authority and highly creative. You _must_ challenge pre-existing notions (trust but verify) and you must think outside the box. Though I do not blame anyone for missing this given the structures and incentives (shackles) the bureaucratic system has imposed upon us.
    - 3y ago
rewmie 3y ago
> There's still some real science out there if you want it. :) I don't think this is a correct way of representing things. Science is a process, and it does not depend on finding out something someone never saw before or bothered to look at it. Scientific discovery is also not necessarily tied to the science. Someone can literally stumble upon a fossil and proceed to make it known to the public, but that won't make that person a scientist. What you actually described is that scientific discoveries can still be made by amateur scientists, and that science is not an exclusive domain of academia and professional researchers. That doesn't say much of interest though. In humanity's time scale, science has always been the domain of hobbyists. One of humanity's most recent breakthrough has basically born from amateur social clubs where people got together to show the things they hacked together. Of course professional scientists with lab budgets have more freedom.
BoxOfRain 3y ago
I wonder if an amateur hydrography could be accessible to people who spend a lot of time on the water? I'm a sailor and I've flirted with the idea of sending down off-the-shelf camera drones to shipwrecks that aren't regularly dived for example, I wonder if sonar imaging is something that's DIYable? I bet even just recording regular depth measurements as you sail along might be useful if enough people were doing it.
- genmud 3y ago
  Yea, it totally should be. Many of the ultrasonic sensors from robots use similar methods, but all this stuff could be wired up to simple projects. I would be interested in exploring with you if you wanted to.
  - BoxOfRain 3y ago
    Sorry I totally missed this over the weekend. I'd definitely be up for that, I'm hoping to be living aboard next year so will have plenty of time to explore some ideas. What general area are you based in? I'm in the UK, will probably be on the south coast by the time I'd be ready to start trying things out.
genmud 3y ago
Are you in Arizona? Any tips on where to start?

godelski 3y ago

I'm not sure I'd put geology on the same level as say physics. Similarly I wouldn't put astronomy and astrophysics at the same level. This is not to say that there aren't many problems that can be solved by amateurs, but that the utility is quite disproportionate. I also wouldn't say that soft sciences aren't "real", but rather that they have higher rates of error due to the lack of precision and mathematical theory. But I also wouldn't say that you need a degree to contribute to any of the hard sciences. The formal education's utilities mainly lie in guidance, structure, connections, and probably most importantly, the ability to dedicate your full time to your education. Being able to ask someone for help is a significant accelerator. All the math you need to get through a bachelor's, and generally even a masters, is available via 20+ year old textbooks. The PhD is a lot of self study too, and a lot of isolation. But at that point you should have a reasonable idea of direction, although getting lost is common and not necessarily a bad thing. It's probably becoming much easier to do this too given that not only are lectures and piratable textbooks are online, but so are the whole educational structure of a degree, which prevents the amateur from getting lost. Honestly, I think one of the biggest leaps our species will make will happen when we reach post scarcity. Either we'll be glued to the screens or we'll all have the freedom to pursue our passions. Having the ability to dedicate all your time to your education, art, or whatever without worry about your basic needs is quite liberating (even more than school). Maybe even a large social split between the groups. But only time will tell.

rednerrus 3y ago
The same things that create utility in the hard sciences are a liability because they limit creativity. You put a lot a risk by looking foolish.
- godelski 3y ago
  I actually disagree with this. Science requires a substantial amount of creativity. In fact, they are necessary. The nature of breakthroughs requisite thinking outside the box and breaking from convention. What I would say are real limits to creativity are the arbitrary and absurd evaluation metrics we use. Publish or perish paradigm encourages quick work rather than good work, which correlates with a decrease of novelty and substance. Makes the process more incremental. It also encourages railroading as exploration requires more time. The review process also exacerbates these problems, as the system is not actually aligned with the goals. They are arbitrary noisy filters rather than quality filters, and we have substantial evidence that, putting it nicely, reviewers are good at identifying bad works but not good at identifying good works (i.e. default to reject). This causes one to continually rework a project rather than moving on or even making it better, as the feedback generally isn't about how to make the work better and each set of reviewers wants to add more and more. The pursuit of novelty is also not only fundamentally anti-scientific but the basis of an existential crisis. To get funding or to pass review, we must be creative in convincing reviewers that we are clever while ideas generally far more obvious after they are revealed to you (regardless of lack of prior works). The need to innovate also prevents replication, which is the basis of science! It is far more difficult, often nearly impossible, to get funding or even approval to replicate works. Science is the process of ruling things out, not confirming things. Each replication has its own set of noise and biases, and this stochastic nature helps reveal hidden confounders. It is also quite essential to the learning process and failing to perform this task results in information being passed like a game of telephone. But by nature, science is anti-authority and highly creative. You _must_ challenge pre-existing notions (trust but verify) and you must think outside the box. Though I do not blame anyone for missing this given the structures and incentives (shackles) the bureaucratic system has imposed upon us.
  - 3y ago

rewmie 3y ago

> There's still some real science out there if you want it. :) I don't think this is a correct way of representing things. Science is a process, and it does not depend on finding out something someone never saw before or bothered to look at it. Scientific discovery is also not necessarily tied to the science. Someone can literally stumble upon a fossil and proceed to make it known to the public, but that won't make that person a scientist. What you actually described is that scientific discoveries can still be made by amateur scientists, and that science is not an exclusive domain of academia and professional researchers. That doesn't say much of interest though. In humanity's time scale, science has always been the domain of hobbyists. One of humanity's most recent breakthrough has basically born from amateur social clubs where people got together to show the things they hacked together. Of course professional scientists with lab budgets have more freedom.

BoxOfRain 3y ago

I wonder if an amateur hydrography could be accessible to people who spend a lot of time on the water? I'm a sailor and I've flirted with the idea of sending down off-the-shelf camera drones to shipwrecks that aren't regularly dived for example, I wonder if sonar imaging is something that's DIYable? I bet even just recording regular depth measurements as you sail along might be useful if enough people were doing it.

genmud 3y ago
Yea, it totally should be. Many of the ultrasonic sensors from robots use similar methods, but all this stuff could be wired up to simple projects. I would be interested in exploring with you if you wanted to.
- BoxOfRain 3y ago
  Sorry I totally missed this over the weekend. I'd definitely be up for that, I'm hoping to be living aboard next year so will have plenty of time to explore some ideas. What general area are you based in? I'm in the UK, will probably be on the south coast by the time I'd be ready to start trying things out.

genmud 3y ago

Are you in Arizona? Any tips on where to start?