Re: Are There Any Actual Physicists/Scientists Here?

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:54:26 -0400, Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 08:27:00 -0400, Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>
>>> consider the course content of the majority of undergraduate
>>> Physics curricula.
>>
>> There are other, independent avenues for study. The greatest
>> gift that can be provided to a student is teaching them HOW
>> to find and categorize any desired information. NOT! any specific
>> topic. With the first gift, and with guidance (in the form of
>> supportive mentoring) the student can excel by finding their OWN
>> voice.
>
> That's all fine and dandy, but not realistic.

It worked great for Admiral Rickover and his nuclear program.

> The issue is the effect of dogmatic thinking on scientific progress,
> but also how to tell the difference between correct scientific
> inquiry and crackpottery.

Ah, now we've scratch through the surface layer... And gotten
down to judgments. Shouldn't it be, as always correlation to
objective reality?

> And how I, a student, can properly navigate unfamiliar territory
> with guides that I have no independent method of trusting.

What independent means are you looking for? Authorities?

> And that I don't have an infinite amount of time to learn

Of course not...

> - my research career spans at most 40 years (the average age of
> NIH R-01 awards, the traditional first PI award, is around 35
> and has been increasing with time), roughly equivalent to 7 rounds
> of proposals. That means I have at most 7 or 8 chances to make
> real contributions. That's it.

IMO if you're worrying about this, you've already failed. You
choose your problem based upon your interests and either solve it
or not. Its the passion that drives and that's not controled
or tied to career spans. You've got to truly WANT to do it.

> Now, if my main goal is personal fulfillment, and what matters
> to me is my self-actualization, I may not care if I make a
> discovery that is useful to others or not. But, if I want to
> make a contribution to science, something that will end up in a
> textbook one day, then I need to deal with reality. And that
> reality means learning what is dogmatically accepted, and then
> finding (and filling) the holes.

These goals are not mutually exculsive and are in fact, most
always synergistic.

>>> All students are to learn how to solve a set number of physical
>>> or abstract systems, and those specific systems have remained
>>> unchanged in more than 60 years.
>>
>> Ah, but what is the motivation?
>
> There's a range of reasons, from "This is the standard toolkit"
> to "Intellectual lazinesss".

One does have to learn & understand basics. However, what is
truly lacking is the context and the explanation of the history
involved in the development of these abstract systems.

>>> It is clear that physics curricula has not kept pace with new
>>> research. New concepts are not being introduced, or introduced
>>> slowly, in fits and starts.
>>
>> There is danger in uncontrolled dissemination of certain knowledge.
>> In a very real sense, knowledge IS power (in the political and economic
>> sense).
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here, and what is this "certain knowledge".

Oh, let's see if I can give a simple, extreme, PURELY HYPOTHETICAL
example. If one discovered a means of tapping the ZPE and extracting
most of that energy (on a per cubic cc basis) in a simple manner,
should this information be widely distributed? The consequences should
be obvious.

> I doubt you mean numerical methods of PDE solutions, renormalization/scaling,
> viscoelasticity, image formation, or contact line motion. All of these are
> active areas of research, and AFAIK, none of these (with the possible
> scattered exception to the first) are presented in undergraduate courses.
> Even in graduate school, the student sometimes must take courses elsewhere:
> the materials science department, EE or computer science department, etc etc.

I mean fundamentals that could quickly lead to, for example, extreme
weapon technology (like nuclear) or if uncontrolled rapid dissemination
could lead to tech that could destablized the existing economic
infrastructure.

> All I mean is that in science, any branch, there is dogmatism. To wish
> it away is nonproductive. As soon as there is a generally accepted
> abstract model to base some natural phenomena upon, there is dogmatism.
> Learning how to navigate it is far more useful.

And I don't disagree. I'd say however learning to circumvent and/or
distroy it is even better :)

>>> And in terms of funded research: who funds it? Peer review drives
>>> the process. How to peers evaluate proposals? Based on what they
>>> (the reviewers) consider to be useful and do-able. How do they
>>> come to their conclusions? Based on their subjective point of view:
>>> to be sure, multiple reviwers and checks-and-balances exist, but
>>> the point is the same: research gets funded if similar research
>>> has been funded before.
>>
>> IMO peer review as practiced today is anti-science. But, to devise
>> a system of checks as well as balance would be daunting.
>
> I disagree with this- my feeling is that it's like Churchill's
> definition of democracy: "It has been said that democracy is the worst
> form of government except {for?} all the others that have been tried."
> Our chair just left to spearhead a renovation of the NIH peer review
> system. I am curious as to what will result. He's definitely the
> right person for the job.

The peer review process lacks independent overview. This fosters as
you say, dogma.

Paul Stowe
.