3 ms·
I've often felt that there is something inherently unwholesome about PhDs and the modern academic effort. As if we could create research factories, and that the
by javajosh 3y ago
I've often felt that there is something inherently unwholesome about PhDs and the modern academic effort. As if we could create research factories, and that the quality and quantity of discoveries would scale with input (money). I'm not a historian of science, but I do know that many of our greatest scientists were not professional researchers, doing the work essentially in their spare time on the side (Einstein, Newton) or more typically, because of the support of a wealthy patron. Contributors self-selected for passion and talent mixed with a juicy problem. It makes sense to park people with passion and talent but NOT a juicy problem into a teaching position until that problem ripens. But instead you get careerist, low-impact papers - even negative-impact papers if you taken into account the impact on signal-to-noise ratio such papers have.
Consider that one of the more important papers in CS in the last 20 years was "Attention is all you need", which was a side-effect of the authors day jobs. Or the many contributions of open-source which are 99% hobbyists. There is some sort of perversion that happens when you "fund research" - it removes the spontaneity and changes the selection criteria from something "natural" (passion and time and results) to something "synthetic" (grant application). It would seem to me a more sensible approach to become a car mechanic or programmer and do your original science on the side.
- bglazer 3y agoIt’s telling that your examples are theoretical physics, math, and computer science. You should visit a lab that does actual experiments. I don’t think anyone is doing cryo electron microscopy in their spare time. Most science just takes a lot of time and money. No way around it. Also, most research is incremental, and thats’s totally fine. People lionize the “great men” like Einstein who have these earth-shattering discoveries, but those aren’t really worth anything without the decades of exploration and hundreds of scientists testing theories and figuring out their consequences and implications.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dmarchand90 3y agoI mean option one is always going to be there. I'm sure there are plenty of neo-aristocrats who can do science if they want. The problem, honestly, is an ancient one. In plato's republic he complains about a lack of state funding for geometry : " Then take a step backward, for we are out of order, and insert the third dimension which is of solids, after the second which is of planes, and then you may proceed to solids in motion. But solid geometry is not popular and has not the patronage of the State, nor is the use of it fully recognized; the difficulty is great, and the votaries of the study are conceited and impatient. Still the charm of the pursuit wins upon men, and, if government would lend a little assistance, there might be great progress made. " https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1497/1497-h/1497-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1497/1497-h/1497-h.htm
- Ar-Curunir 3y agoEinstein had a PhD…