Teaching yourself, is it really possible?

TrickyDicky

Quote by ZapperZ

Has anyone, in recent history, who has not gone through a formal physics education ever made any significant contribution to the body of knowledge of physics, then the answer is NO.
....the least criteria of it is significant publications in prestigious peer-reviewed journals.

How do you know that? Do you keep track of the academic backgrounds of all the authors publishing something significant in the field of physics in the main PR journals in recent history? Maybe what you meant is that you don't but journals certainly do.
On the other hand to avoid subjectivity you should specify what you consider significant, what you mean by recent history(in years), and what you mean by formal physics education(BS, master, PhD, related majors).

TurtleMeister

List of autodidacts

Evo

Quote by TurtleMeister

List of autodidacts

This would verify what Zz said.

TurtleMeister

Quote by Evo

This would verify what Zz said.

I wasn't trying to verify or contradict what Zz said. I just thought the list would be of interest to the readers and participants of the thread. I have a unique perspective on this subject because I myself do not have a formal education. However, I have experienced second hand what the higher education life is like. I was with my fiancee throughout all of her grad school years at an ivy league university. So I have respect for what you guys went through and accomplished.

Abstr7ct

As an electrical engineering undergraduate student, I prefer to to teach myself and it works very well so far. In fact, teacher themselves expect you to learn a lot of things on your own especially when you go to higher courses.

I can't handle sitting on chair listening to a teacher explaining a subject for an hour or so, I just feel handcuffed and uncomfortable, whereas sitting in my own room reading and practicing theoretically and experimentally, is much more fun.

CFDFEAGURU

I believe you can teach yourself as long as you stay within the boundaries of your own understanding. Don't memorize information simply to repeat it later to sound intelligent on a subject. (I know a moron that does this all the time and only makes people dislike him even more.) The knowledge is in knowing how to use that information.

Thanks
Matt

Galteeth

Quote by TurtleMeister

I think ZapperZ hit the nail on the head. Short version: You can learn the physics, but you will never be "in the club".

Isn't this sort of a bad thing though? I mean, perhaps you have some real geniuses out their who for whatever reason don't fit into the culture or struggle with the more mundane bureaucratic aspects?

Jim Kata

I think you can learn on your own, but there will be massive holes in your knowledge. I've learned far more about Mathematics on my own than I ever did in my Master's program, but I learned it in a spotchy way, in that I learned the gist of a lot of things. Now sitting down and working through Rudin or Jackson on your own would take a level of diligence that most people just don't have.

Stromthetroll

You may learn but you cannot publish, at least easily, as issac asimov said there is no other type of education besides self-education, it is paraphrased of course

TurtleMeister

Quote by Galteeth

Isn't this sort of a bad thing though? I mean, perhaps you have some real geniuses out their who for whatever reason don't fit into the culture or struggle with the more mundane bureaucratic aspects?

I'm not sure what you mean by "a bad thing". Bad for who or what? If you're referring to what Stromthetroll mentioned about not being able to publish, then I guess that would be a bad thing for the misfit genius. But then he didn't go through the proving grounds that the "guys in the club" had to go through. So in that respect, maybe it's only natural that it should be harder for him to get published.

Galteeth

Quote by TurtleMeister

I'm not sure what you mean by "a bad thing". Bad for who or what? If you're referring to what Stromthetroll mentioned about not being able to publish, then I guess that would be a bad thing for the misfit genius. But then he didn't go through the proving grounds that the "guys in the club" had to go through. So in that respect, maybe it's only natural that it should be harder for him to get published.

Bad for science, if people who potentially could make contributions are excluded because of an inability to conform to the culture.

TurtleMeister

Quote by Galteeth

Bad for science, if people who potentially could make contributions are excluded because of an inability to conform to the culture.

Good point. But if a person is unable to conform to the things that Zz mentioned, then how would he be able to communicate his contribution even if he were allowed into the "club"? It's up to the individual to conform if he wants to contribute by being in the "club", not the other way around. It would be difficult for the "club" to conform to every individual's special needs.

But I do see what you mean. And it would be a loss for science in a case like that. But I don't really see any way around it. The individual would just have to figure something out for themselves.

Johninch

Quote by uperkurk

Are there any people in recent history who never went to university to learn physics and just taught themselves using the internet and books? Is it really possible to get a solid understanding of physics just from reading and practice?

I agree with the others and also from my personal experience I doubt that you could get a "solid understanding of physics" outside of university. That's much too ambitious.

What you can do is to pick one or two topics and go into depth on them, or you can do what I do which is to set up a project and study all the ramifications of that. Even then, to get an in depth understanding of most areas of physics you need to understand the math.

Basically you need to set specific goals, otherwise you will start rambling due to the freedom!

Abstr7ct

Continuing my opinion...

Again, I study electrical engineering. The basic courses, such as basic circuit analysis and basic electronics, can be studied thoroughly on your own without any need to go to a single lecture. The reason for this, is that such courses have expansive and well-written resources, from books, online lectures and resources. You can get a solid foundation on the theory and on the practical side if you choose you to teach yourself on these subjects, and this comes from a personal experience.

However, when you go to more advanced stuff, like digital design and communications, you find yourself trapped in a lot of areas if you choose not to communicate with your instructor. In addition, you can't find enough resources that provide expansive and well-written explanations compared to basic courses. For example, I'm taking the first course in digital design and we use Verilog to implement digital circuits by simulation and on FPGA boards. You can't survive Verilog programming if you don't communicate with your instructor since the materials available on Verilog and FPGA programming are rare and confusing. Subsequently, you find yourself lost and trapped as you go further.

Evo

One of the problems with being self-taught, you may learn facts, but you don't learn critical thinking.

In the book, Critical Thinking, Beyer elaborately explains what he sees as essential aspects of critical thinking. These are:

Dispositions: Critical thinkers are skeptical, open-minded, value fair-mindedness, respect evidence and reasoning, respect clarity and precision, look at different points of view, and will change positions when reason leads them to do so.

Criteria: To think critically, must apply criteria. Need to have conditions that must be met for something to be judged as believable. Although the argument can be made that each subject area has different criteria, some standards apply to all subjects. "... an assertion must... be based on relevant, accurate facts; based on credible sources; precise; unbiased; free from logical fallacies; logically consistent; and strongly reasoned" (p. 12).

Argument: Is a statement or proposition with supporting evidence. Critical thinking involves identifying, evaluating, and constructing arguments.

Reasoning: The ability to infer a conclusion from one or multiple premises. To do so requires examining logical relationships among statements or data.

Point of View: The way one views the world, which shapes one's construction of meaning. In a search for understanding, critical thinkers view phenomena from many different points of view.

Procedures for Applying Criteria: Other types of thinking use a general procedure. Critical thinking makes use of many procedures. These procedures include asking questions, making judgments, and identifying assumptions.

http://academic.udayton.edu/legaled/....htm#what%20is

edward

Quote by uperkurk

Are there any people in recent history who never went to university to learn physics and just taught themselves using the internet and books? Is it really possible to get a solid understanding of physics just from reading and practice?

I guess it would be a bit hard to test certain experiements due to lack of equipment but nevertheless is it doable?

I live 10mins from a university and thought about sitting in on their physics lectures as the lecture halls have no form of security. I could get copies of the lecture hand outs ect. Only thing is I wouldn't be able to get my work marked but just wanted a professional opinion.

Since you menion the internet and this is for your own personal interest. Both Stanford and MIT have free online courses.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechcons...academic-level

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/index.htm

Master J

Apologies if I haven't followed the recent stream of replies, but I have noticed a few well-meaning responses that seem somewhat discouraging.

The only thing that matters is whether or not you have a real passion, a real fascination with the subject. If you work hard at it, you can learn so much. There is a whole ocean of textbooks available, not to mention the vast library of notes that many universities put online. It is all there!!

But being a physicist is something different. That means being part of the group who have academic qualifications, being part of that culture. And while this is necessary, I do think sometimes that it is hostile to outsiders. Who is to say such an outsider could not make a contribution? Not everyone has the privileged opportunity to attend university.

Similar Threads for: Teaching yourself, is it really possible?
Thread	Forum	Replies
Self Teaching	Academic Guidance	4
self teaching	Academic Guidance	13
How to go about teaching myself.	Academic Guidance	9
teaching	Brain Teasers	12
Teaching vs doing	Special & General Relativity	41

TurtleMeister Recognitions: Gold Member	List of autodidacts

CFDFEAGURU Recognitions: Gold Member	I believe you can teach yourself as long as you stay within the boundaries of your own understanding. Don't memorize information simply to repeat it later to sound intelligent on a subject. (I know a moron that does this all the time and only makes people dislike him even more.) The knowledge is in knowing how to use that information. Thanks Matt

Jim Kata Blog Entries: 1	I think you can learn on your own, but there will be massive holes in your knowledge. I've learned far more about Mathematics on my own than I ever did in my Master's program, but I learned it in a spotchy way, in that I learned the gist of a lot of things. Now sitting down and working through Rudin or Jackson on your own would take a level of diligence that most people just don't have.

Stromthetroll	You may learn but you cannot publish, at least easily, as issac asimov said there is no other type of education besides self-education, it is paraphrased of course