Teaching yourself, is it really possible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter uperkurk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Teaching
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the feasibility of self-educating in physics without formal university training. Participants explore whether it is possible to gain a solid understanding of physics through self-study using books and online resources, while also considering the challenges of practical experimentation and the lack of formal assessment.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the ability to fully understand physics through self-study, noting the difficulty in assessing one's own comprehension.
  • Others argue that many individuals have successfully taught themselves physics and made contributions to the field, although some assert that significant contributions are rare without formal education.
  • Historical examples, such as Newton and Faraday, are cited as instances of self-taught physicists, but the relevance of these examples to modern self-education is debated.
  • Concerns are raised about the practical limitations of self-education, particularly the lack of access to laboratory facilities and expert guidance, which may hinder the learning process.
  • Some participants suggest that while self-education is possible, it may be more challenging at the graduate level due to the complexity of the material and the depth of prior knowledge required.
  • There is mention of the availability of online courses as a resource for self-learners, though the lack of formal credit is noted.
  • One participant emphasizes that much of the learning in formal education is self-directed, suggesting that self-study can be effective if one is motivated.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the effectiveness of self-education in physics, with some believing it is entirely possible while others argue it is unlikely to lead to mastery. There is no consensus on the extent to which self-education can replace formal education.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the potential lack of access to necessary experimental facilities and the challenge of acquiring tacit knowledge without expert guidance. The discussion also highlights the varying definitions of "understanding" and "mastery" in the context of self-education.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals considering self-education in physics, educators exploring alternative learning methods, and those curious about the historical context of self-taught scientists.

uperkurk
Messages
167
Reaction score
0
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.
 
Science news on Phys.org
If you read a book, I don't see how you could fail to learn from it.
 
uperkurk said:
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.

This is difficult to judge, i.e. how does one knows that one has fully understood what one is trying to teach oneself?

However, if you ask another question, such as : 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.

Now that doesn't mean that there is no one who has learned physics on his/her own, but there is no metric to measure such ability other than anecdotal accounts. On the other hand, making a contribution to the body of knowledge can be "measured", the least criteria of it is significant publications in prestigious peer-reviewed journals.

Zz.
 
As for less recent history, there is the example of Newton, who didn't even have a physics book to read, and Faraday, who had no formal physics education. More recently was Humason, assistant to Hubble. Here's a recent example of elementary school kids doing science.
Bees
 
uperkurk said:
...experiements...

Are you dutch?

There is no way to know if you can do it. But the odds are against it. Also, it may be easy to get to attend class. But is it illegal? You may want to think about that.

Then again there are excellent online lessons, Somebody may link to that.

Freeman Dyson signed something once, claiming only bachelor of art mathematics.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/22026080/freeman_dyson_.jpg

Finally as a side step, this guy never had any formal education in his branch of science. Yet he is considered a world leading specialist on Pleistocene mammals and I can tell why.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Without an expert in the field to teach you or at least be on hand to help as you teach yourself then depending on the field it can be hard to impossible to learn tacit knowledge. Couple that with the fact that for most scientific disciplines at advanced level you're going to need facilities beyond the average wealth to learn (i.e a lab) and it becomes even more unlikely that one can master a subject on one's own with only reference materials.
 
Jimmy Snyder said:
...Here's a recent example of elementary school kids doing science.
Bees

Or maybe being artisits!
I linked this, which was displayed at the Hayward and Serpentine Galleries, back in '08-
:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Andre said:
Freeman Dyson signed something once, claiming only bachelor of art mathematics.

That's a bit misleading, unless you know that Cambridge University did not award BSc or MSc degrees in any subject whatever, even in the 1970s. The Cambridge M.A. degree at that time had no academic standing - the only requirements were not to break any University rules for 5 years after obtaining a BA, and pay a small fee if you wanted to "collect" it in person, rather than just get a piece of paper in the mail. It was simply a formal recognition that you were now eligible to vote on certain matters as a member of the university.

The game has changed now. You can find heaviily cited papers in the International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering in the 1960s and 70s from at least one person without even a degree (I used to work for him!) but as Zz said, not any more.
 
Andre said:
...
Freeman Dyson signed something once, claiming only bachelor of art mathematics.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/22026080/freeman_dyson_.jpg

AlephZero said:
That's a bit misleading, unless you know that Cambridge University did not award BSc or MSc degrees in any subject whatever, even in the 1970s. The Cambridge M.A. degree at that time had no academic standing -

Just wanted to react to that, because what I'm standing for is pure honesty in it's most naive form, http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Cargo_cult_science.html.

I wasn't aware of those pecularities, nor that it was misleading, so if so, my apologies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Maybe "misleading" was a bit strong.

I would guess the reason why Trinity College Cambridge awarded Dyson a Fellowship without a Ph.D in 1946 was the general disruption to the education system caused by WWII. Having got the equivalent of modern academic tenure, takiing time out to write a thesis probably wasn't the top priority on his "to do" list.

The Wiki link isn't quite clear, but it could imply he obtained his BA degree in just one year at Cambridge "after the war". That would have been possible within the rules as they then were - the only requirement was to pass the final examinations (6 hours per day on two consecutive days), not to accumulate X "credits" over several years by attending lectures, handing in homework assignments, etc.

So the tick-boxes on the petition in your image weren't very appropriate for his situation, but the way he completed them was legally correct.
 
  • #11
From my experiences in college so far, most of the learning we do is self-taught anyways. ALL of my science/engineering classes solely require you to understand the book and understand the labs. With a thorough grasp on both, anyone can make an A and learn the subject completely. Therefore, if you want a good grade you have to resort to reading the book by yourself and going to labs. All the professor really does is summarize the chapters from the book and throw in a few real-world examples not mentioned in the book. This is true for most science classes and for most engineering classes except for senior design/advanced engineering classes.
 
  • #12
I think it's totally possible to self-educate yourself in undergrad, I feel like most people who're serious about their studies do this anyways to a fairly large degree.

However in gradschool, you deal with very specific and much more complicated problems. You're usually trying to catch up with 50-60 years of research ontop of the knowledge you learn in undergrad. Doing that all on your own will take a very long time, and your knowledge will probably be very incomplete. It's amazing how much time you can save by just talking to someone wiser and more experienced than yourself.
 
  • #13
It depends. If you want to be a master in the field, probably not but possible. If you want a general understanding then yes.

I almost never go to class and just learn by reading books, doing problems, etc.
 
  • #14
These days you can take college classes online for free (you don't get credit, just learn something.) And yes, it's legal.

https://www.coursera.org/
 
  • #15
  • #16
People should also realize that there's a difference between learning physics and learning to be a physicist. The latter involves not just learning physics, but learning the culture, the language, the interaction, the practice, and the system of functioning to be a physicist. These are not something you can acquire simply by reading books! If any of you have read my "So You Want To Be A Physicist" essay, you would have noticed that the MAJORITY of the items I discussed do NOT involved learning something out of a physics textbook.

So yes, to some extent, you can learn a material just on your own. But do not fall under the delusion that you are doing the same thing as learning how to become a physicist.

Zz.
 
  • #17
ZapperZ said:
People should also realize that there's a difference between learning physics and learning to be a physicist. The latter involves not just learning physics, but learning the culture, the language, the interaction, the practice, and the system of functioning to be a physicist.
Zz.

I think ZapperZ hit the nail on the head. Short version: You can learn the physics, but you will never be "in the club".
 
  • #18
ZapperZ said:
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).
 
  • #20
  • #21
Evo said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
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.
 
  • #23
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
 
  • #24
TurtleMeister said:
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?
 
  • #25
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.
 
  • #26
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
 
  • #27
Galteeth said:
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.
 
  • #28
TurtleMeister said:
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.
 
  • #29
Galteeth said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
uperkurk said:
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!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
6K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
14K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
16K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
16
Views
2K