3 ms·
> Same applies to scientists. They work individually, and pretty much do work and are judged in isolation. I don't think this is true any more. Historically,
by James_Duval 13y ago
> Same applies to scientists. They work individually, and pretty much do work and are judged in isolation.
I don't think this is true any more.
Historically, you had individual scientists working hard on very specific problem areas.
Even this didn't get rid of the divide between (perceived) genius and (perceived) success. Witness the classic example of Edison vs. Tesla.
However, modern scientists seem to work predominantly in groups, and are subject to the same petty intrigues and political nonsense as the rest of us.
- lutusp 13y ago> > Same applies to scientists. They work individually, and pretty much do work and are judged in isolation. > I don't think this is true any more. True, and to me unfortunate. Some recent LHC papers have more than 1000 authors, each of which actually contributed something to the outcome. "Did Higgs yield the most authors in a science study?" : http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57509551-1/did-higgs-yield-the-most-authors-in-a-science-study/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57509551-1/did-higgs-yie... Quote: "Two articles by the teams are each about 30 pages long. The combined author list takes up 19 pages of single-spaced text and appears to have roughly 6,000 names. Wouldn't that be fun to cite as a footnote in full?" > However, modern scientists seem to work predominantly in groups, and are subject to the same petty intrigues and political nonsense as the rest of us. All true. The movie portrayal of a 19th century scientist working alone toward a basic discovery is now a popular myth.