Register to reply

Forum Rules

by LitleBang
Tags: rules
Share this thread:
DanP
#19
Nov2-09, 06:14 AM
P: 630
Quote Quote by arildno View Post
Yawn.


Russ Watters' history teacher made only a slight exaggeration, nothing more..
Very true. But it proves her wrong. According to her theories , those 2 couldn't be "established thinkers" and they would have to wait to get their PhD to even dare to contemplate a problem of this magnitude. Its ironic
arildno
#20
Nov2-09, 06:39 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
P: 12,016
Quote Quote by DanP View Post
According to her theories , those 2 couldn't be "established thinkers" and they would have to wait to get their PhD to even dare to contemplate a problem of this magnitude. Its ironic
No, because the PhD thesis being a necessary criterion was the above-mentioned exaggeration on his part.
DanP
#21
Nov2-09, 06:51 AM
P: 630
Quote Quote by arildno View Post
No, because the PhD thesis being a necessary criterion was the above-mentioned exaggeration on his part.
Yes, because said exaggeration rendered the whole logic construct false. Follow the structure:

condition == "until you get a PhD"
dependent proposition == "didn't understand the subject matter well enough to provide any original insight"

The fact that I presented renders the construct false. Besides, I have the feeling Crick's insight didnt depended by being a "established thinker", nor by Chargaff running around and pretending Waston / Crick are turkeys which cant even remember elementary structures. They simply had it in them, PhD or no PdD

Aslo, we can talk about Tesla if you want. Should he have waited for a PhD as well to dare to think about induction motors ? Heck, by some accounts Tesla didnt even completed his undergraduate studies. He is a more classical example of "renegade thinker". He probably produced as much crackpot as he did helped humankind advance
arildno
#22
Nov2-09, 07:00 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
P: 12,016
Yes, because said exaggeration rendered the whole logic construct false. Follow the structure:

condition == "until you get a PhD"
dependent proposition == "didn't understand the subject matter well enough to provide any original insight"

The fact that I presented renders the construct false. Besides, I have the feeling Crick's insight didnt depended by being a "established thinker", nor by Chargaff running around and pretending Waston / Crick are turkeys which cant even remember elementary structures. They simply had it in them, PhD or no PdD
No, they didn't have it "in them" in the early 40's, say, because they then had not learnt enough to tackle the problem.
They gained those skills through a wholly standard higher-level education.

Nor is it likely that they would have gotten those skills outside of academia.
DanP
#23
Nov2-09, 07:15 AM
P: 630
Quote Quote by arildno View Post
No, they didn't have it "in them" in the early 40's, say, because they then had not learnt enough to tackle the problem.
They gained those skills through a wholly standard higher-level education.
No contest on the means of gaining the knowledge. Standard higher level education is by far the most efficent means of gaining knowledge.

However, they simply did had it independently by what established ppl in academia thought about them. I.E , your ability to use the knowledge you gain, does not depend by academic recognition, PhD's or other such academic honors. More overs, it does not depend
of what a teacher of history thinks what you can do, or generally , how much your high school teacher thinks you should learn before trying to be "original"

I think humans are fortunate to have a free spirit and try original things. If we should have waited for PhDs before thinking of anything, or listen to all those naysayers, academia or not, we would still live in caves.

Generally, ppl which **do** remain in history. The rest, irrespective of their PhDs and other academic grades, are forgotten.

Wright brothers conceived a plane. They gave us "flight". Others do PhDs only to lay down in dust and never do anything (except teaching in some university, which no doubt, has
a tremendous value, but it's not really original)
DanP
#24
Nov2-09, 07:24 AM
P: 630
Quote Quote by arildno View Post

Nor is it likely that they would have gotten those skills outside of academia.

Unlikely, yes. Impossible no.

John Moffatt at U Torronto currently. Painter in Paris, no undergraduate degree. Self taught. Corresponded with Einstein. Was admitted as a student to imperial college from London, based on his **original** work. I think he did post grad with Abdus Salam.

I could be wrong though, not sure it was Salam
arildno
#25
Nov2-09, 08:02 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
P: 12,016
your ability to use the knowledge you gain, does not depend by academic recognition, PhD's or other such academic honors.
Since you generally won't achieve a PhD without "using your knowledge", having a PhD usually means you are good at that.
DanP
#26
Nov2-09, 08:32 AM
P: 630
Quote Quote by arildno View Post
Since you generally won't achieve a PhD without "using your knowledge", having a PhD usually means you are good at that.
Again true, but whats your point , in relation to the ability to think creatively and originally ?
I think it;s crystal clear for anyone that a Phd is highly advanced academical degree, and possessing one is a testimony to your ability to use "knowledge".

Crick didn't had this formal recognition known as a "phD". Some of more established researchers as Chargraff (my fav example) where dead bent on belittleing the Watson / Crick couple. Probably endless rows of "history teachers" did the same in their minds. Look, no PhDs. look, those guys cant even remember some of the elementary chemical structures.

But in the end, those 2 guys , using their knowledge and what probably was a uncanny amount of sheer determination, got the answer to the problem. Got a Nobel for it. While
Chargaff got a what was probably the biggest disappointment in his life. While he was a great researcher in his own right, with serious contributions to nucleic acid problems, he should have focused more on his own research than asserting what other ppl can do or not. Maybe then he would have got the structure first.


Having a PhD wont magically enable you to develop a new original theory or magically create a technological breakthrough. It is knowledge and work , a lot of hard work. It takes "heart". And unfortunately, no university or PhD can give you "heart".
DanP
#27
Nov2-09, 09:12 AM
P: 630
Couple of years ago I had the incredible luck to be part of the same online community as prof. Tom Fahey , one of the coauthors of the text (with profs Brooks and Baldwin) "Exercise physiology: Human bio-energetics and its applications", a work which is IMO today the standard in exercise physiology books.

When we praised his work, he responded with 2 things: 2 affirmations and an anecdote. He said to the community (my paraphrase):

1. "Thank you for your nice words. However, don't take our word for anything. Demand
evidence!" Judging about his interaction with the group, which contained a lot of coaches,
exercise physiology scientists and athletes themselves I am inclined to believe he really had this attitude and those where not just "nice words". We did question official lines of thinking very often. We tried to reconcile observations from the field (i.e athlete performance with
phsyiology). In the end the discussion where very productive for all IMO.

2. The anecdote was about one of his professors , prof Franklin Henry , one of the fathers of motor control specificity theories . Prof. Henry once said that if someone says "Good morning," you should say, "Where's your data?"

Perhaps one of the posters in this thread got it right when he said there is a difference between "questions" and "questioning". But sometimes the border is blurred.

But IMO is a gross mistake from the part of a teacher to state at the begging of a course that you "not question the current thinking on health care". In rare cases it can even mean that said professor was not prepared himself to discuss and provide meaningful answers to some questions. Its even more wrong for a history teacher to write theorems about who can or not think creatively.
LitleBang
#28
Nov2-09, 09:17 AM
P: 40
The responses so far have proved what I say, I rest my case.
DanP
#29
Nov2-09, 09:22 AM
P: 630
Quote Quote by LitleBang View Post
The responses so far have proved what I say, I rest my case.
Yes, but chances are that most of theories you can develop without a solid base (which may take years to develop) are crackpot indeed. Be prepared to be wrong , and make a lot of mistakes. Best is to absorb everything with an open mind. Ask questions today, question tomorrow, but dont let other ppl tell you what your mind can or can not do with or without a PhD. Be also "social" savvy, most of the ppl dont like to be asked for explanations. Use utmost diplomacy, and make friends in high places :P
arildno
#30
Nov2-09, 09:23 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
P: 12,016
Quote Quote by LitleBang View Post
The responses so far have proved what I say, I rest my case.
You never had any case to begin with, so yes, it is best if you put it to rest.
FredGarvin
#31
Nov2-09, 11:11 AM
Sci Advisor
FredGarvin's Avatar
P: 5,095
Quote Quote by DanP View Post
1. "Thank you for your nice words. However, don't take our word for anything. Demand
evidence!" Judging about his interaction with the group, which contained a lot of coaches,
exercise physiology scientists and athletes themselves I am inclined to believe he really had this attitude and those where not just "nice words". We did question official lines of thinking very often. We tried to reconcile observations from the field (i.e athlete performance with
phsyiology). In the end the discussion where very productive for all IMO.

2. The anecdote was about one of his professors , prof Franklin Henry , one of the fathers of motor control specificity theories . Prof. Henry once said that if someone says "Good morning," you should say, "Where's your data?"
All of your arguments are arguing the notion of having/requiring an advanced degree and that is not the point. Even in your examples, the people who are supposed to be questioning things are people with experience and prior knowledge in the area. They are in no way inexperienced or just off the street with an idea in their head.

Your second note about wanting to see the data is perfect. If someone with no knowledge in an area starts to question things, but has good data to back up their questions then I see no problems with the questioning. Will that ever happen with someone who has no knowledge in a certain area? I highly doubt it. But if they can back themselves up with data, then listen to them.
DanP
#32
Nov2-09, 12:17 PM
P: 630
Quote Quote by FredGarvin View Post
Your second note about wanting to see the data is perfect. If someone with no knowledge in an area starts to question things, but has good data to back up their questions then I see no problems with the questioning. Will that ever happen with someone who has no knowledge in a certain area? I highly doubt it. But if they can back themselves up with data, then listen to them.
You nailed it. Best post in thread
LitleBang
#33
Nov2-09, 03:17 PM
P: 40
The point, science can't explain the mechanism of gravity except the all inclusive warping of space time. If someone has a logical explanation of the mechanism of gravity they are not allowed to post it here. Doesn't that mean only the established experts can post new ideas? That guarantees that no arm scientist stumbles across something new.
DaveC426913
#34
Nov2-09, 03:51 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by LitleBang View Post
... they are not allowed to post it here...
LitleBang did seem to be implying that his whole point was about posting new ideas here.

LitleBang: there are plenty of channels for getting new theories published. This forum just isn't one of them (though there is a subforum for discussing peer-reviewed theories.)

A forum cannot be all things to all people. This forum is about discussing the currently understood standard model.

You wouldn't go on a Spice Girls forum and complain that they won't let you talk about Shania Twain, would you?
russ_watters
#35
Nov2-09, 04:07 PM
Mentor
P: 22,294
Quote Quote by DanP View Post
Didn't F. Crick discovered the structure of DNA in 1953 with Watson, while he didnt had yet defended his PhD thesis ? I believe he did so only in 1954. Besides, they beat L. Pauling to it, which says a lot.

[later post] condition == "until you get a PhD"
You misread: I said got to his phd thesis. Crick was a phd student, so he fits the criteria. It should also be noted that he's a pretty special case as his first phd research was interrupted by WWII (quite literally by a bomb!) and he was 35 at the time of the discovery of DNA.

He most certainly was a professional scientist when he made the discovery.
russ_watters
#36
Nov2-09, 04:12 PM
Mentor
P: 22,294
Quote Quote by LitleBang View Post
The point, science can't explain the mechanism of gravity except the all inclusive warping of space time. If someone has a logical explanation of the mechanism of gravity they are not allowed to post it here. Doesn't that mean only the established experts can post new ideas? That guarantees that no arm scientist stumbles across something new.
No, it guarantees no armchair scientist first announces their discovery here. This isn't the place for that anyway*! If someone truly has discovered something noteworthy, they need simply to write a scholarly paper on it and submit it to journals for publication. That's how new science is done. It isn't done on internet forums.

*If you see that as a drawback of physicsforums, so be it. We don't and we have a very good reason for that: we've tried it the other way and it didn't work!


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Forum Rules High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics 1
Atomic, Solid State, Comp. Physics Forum Rules Atomic, Solid State, Comp. Physics 1
Quantum Physics Forum Rules Quantum Physics 1
Forum Rules - PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING! Beyond the Standard Model 1
Would this be against the forum rules? Forum Feedback & Announcements 4