3 ms·

I think his question is fairly reasonable. The field of physics is so large and the amount of knowledge and sophistication required in both mathematics and phys

by cool-RR 17y ago

I think his question is fairly reasonable. The field of physics is so large and the amount of knowledge and sophistication required in both mathematics and physics to actually "discover laws of the universe" that it would be very difficult to achieve such a level by simply independent study. I wanted to disagree with your sentence, but now I see it is not grammatically valid. I'll try to guess what you meant and disagree with that. I heard this argument many times. It's basically, "There's too much physics to do physics!" Just because there's a lot of physical knowledge out there, doesn't mean that you have to be a super-genius to do fundamental work. I don't know exactly how to explain this, but I think I can equate it to the internet business, which is probably more familiar to most HN readers. What people say about science can also be said about the internet business. There are so many companies working on internet products, so many start-ups and so much money being poured into this, that surely you have to be a genius with a lot of money and connections to do something that will make a difference! But we know that's not true. And I claim it's not true for science either. -- it would be very difficult to achieve such a level by simply independent study [...] I think there is too much made about autodidactism. I think you're dissing autodidactism too much. What do you think about people teaching themselves to program? Also, just because you're studying independently, doesn't mean you don't consult with other people. I routinely consult with grad students. Also, when you're doing research, you're being autodidactic by definition. -- Sure, there people like Srinivasa Ramanujan but they are very, very rare. [...] how many autodidacts take their learning to such a rigorous degree? How many HN readers actually found a successful start-up, get rich, and live the rest of their lives leisurely working on interesting problems? Probably not too many. But it's not a reason to give up. -- I just don't think we can say "See, academics aren't even interested in learning about the World. They are glorified bureaucrats that can solve differential equations." It's a generalization. There are still many fine scientists. But when trying to compare now to the past, this is what now looks like.

dinkumthinkum 17y ago
You don't have to insult me with this "not grammatically valid" nonsense. Look, anyone seeing your explanation of the correspondence can see that your view is somewhat naive. Comparing doing an Internet startup doing to the kind of research required to discover new things about the world is a bit ridiculous. No sane person would say it takes the same level of intellectual rigor to do a startup as research physics. This is not to say it is not hard but, well, Twitter is not "rocket science," but rocket science is. Let's strive for intellectual honesty. Also, I did say autodidactism exists and is great. Sure many people teach themselves to program. I think the issue here is in scale and magnitude. Sure, Ramanujan's are out there but not everyone we chat up with at Borders about string theory is one.
- cool-RR 17y ago
  Comparing doing an Internet startup doing to the kind of research required to discover new things about the world is a bit ridiculous. [...] Twitter is not "rocket science," [...] I disagree. I agree that building a start-up involves less rigor than doing research, but rigor is just one variable among many in the success of a research (or a start-up.) I don't think that building a successful start-up is less of an intellectual achievement than doing scientific research.
  - dinkumthinkum 17y ago
    But rigor is what is at issue! It is the crux of the entire thing.
    - cool-RR 17y ago
      I think I lost track of what we're talking about... Rigor is the crux of what? (To clarify, the reason I was comparing research to starting a startup was to show how, even though a field appears to be immensely popular and having a lot of money and talent being poured into it, it is still possible for a determined person to make a breakthrough in it.)
  - apu 17y ago
    I don't think that building a successful start-up is less of an intellectual achievement than doing scientific research. I strongly disagree. I have the utmost respect for those who have built successful startups, but virtually none are a very significant intellectual achievement. It takes ambition, dedication, determination, courage, talent, skill, tact, vision, luck, and a hundred other attributes to achieve success in building a startup, but very rarely does it require an intense intellectual effort, and almost never is there any fundamental advancement of scientific thought. Also, having spent time studying computer science, physics, and aeronautical engineering, one major difference I see is the relative maturity and depth of various fields. Computer science is so much newer than physics that there is simply much more unexplored territory at a shallower level -- which doesn't require as much studying to get to -- that it is easier to come up with new ideas there than in physics.

by cool-RR 17y ago

dinkumthinkum 17y ago

You don't have to insult me with this "not grammatically valid" nonsense. Look, anyone seeing your explanation of the correspondence can see that your view is somewhat naive. Comparing doing an Internet startup doing to the kind of research required to discover new things about the world is a bit ridiculous. No sane person would say it takes the same level of intellectual rigor to do a startup as research physics. This is not to say it is not hard but, well, Twitter is not "rocket science," but rocket science is. Let's strive for intellectual honesty. Also, I did say autodidactism exists and is great. Sure many people teach themselves to program. I think the issue here is in scale and magnitude. Sure, Ramanujan's are out there but not everyone we chat up with at Borders about string theory is one.

cool-RR 17y ago
Comparing doing an Internet startup doing to the kind of research required to discover new things about the world is a bit ridiculous. [...] Twitter is not "rocket science," [...] I disagree. I agree that building a start-up involves less rigor than doing research, but rigor is just one variable among many in the success of a research (or a start-up.) I don't think that building a successful start-up is less of an intellectual achievement than doing scientific research.
- dinkumthinkum 17y ago
  But rigor is what is at issue! It is the crux of the entire thing.
  - cool-RR 17y ago
    I think I lost track of what we're talking about... Rigor is the crux of what? (To clarify, the reason I was comparing research to starting a startup was to show how, even though a field appears to be immensely popular and having a lot of money and talent being poured into it, it is still possible for a determined person to make a breakthrough in it.)
- apu 17y ago
  I don't think that building a successful start-up is less of an intellectual achievement than doing scientific research. I strongly disagree. I have the utmost respect for those who have built successful startups, but virtually none are a very significant intellectual achievement. It takes ambition, dedication, determination, courage, talent, skill, tact, vision, luck, and a hundred other attributes to achieve success in building a startup, but very rarely does it require an intense intellectual effort, and almost never is there any fundamental advancement of scientific thought. Also, having spent time studying computer science, physics, and aeronautical engineering, one major difference I see is the relative maturity and depth of various fields. Computer science is so much newer than physics that there is simply much more unexplored territory at a shallower level -- which doesn't require as much studying to get to -- that it is easier to come up with new ideas there than in physics.