Why are modern scientists so dull?

http://beta.technologyreview.com/blog/post.aspx?bid=354&bpid=23728

by zkz • 17 years ago

25 63 17 years ago

beta.technologyreview.com

michael_dorfman4• 17 years ago

Who says modern scientists are dull? Compared to when?

Is it really necessary to knock down every straw man one can conceive of?

smanek8• 17 years ago

Compared to Feynman or Erdős or Tesla ;-)

michael_dorfman4• 17 years ago

Feynman and Erdős aren't modern? How about Hawking? I mean,"alive" would have to count for something in the "modern" department, right?

antiform• 17 years ago

No way. There are tons of people in the sciences with very interesting lives, they just don't have people knocking down their door to write popular biographies like Feynman, Erdös, or Tesla.

I say that living mathematicians like John Nash Jr., Shing-tung Yau, and Alexander Grothendieck have much more interesting lives than the examples you mentioned.

Alex39177• 17 years ago

"Who says modern scientists are dull? Compared to when?"

Compare non-fiction books of the 70s to non-fiction books today. With the exception of a couple people like Ray Kurzweil, our books today aren't a tenth as creative or brilliant. I'd argue that in most fields today scientists are just refining models created between the 60s and early 80s. Linguistics, educational theory, psychology, and organization behavior are all good examples of this.

njm• 17 years ago

This is generally the case across the physical and life sciences too. Even "revolutionary" fields like epigenetics and genomics are effectively refinements and extensions of the pioneering work done in molecular biology during the 1960s and 70s. The same goes for particle physics, where the framework for the standard model is decades old. It seems that scientific innovation occurs in punctuated equilibria.

michael_dorfman4• 17 years ago

You sure about that? It sounds a lot like "Boy, this music these kids are listening to is just a lot of noise-- not nearly as good as the music when I was young...."

aswanson4• 17 years ago

Most scientists don't publish books. They do research and publish papers.

justin_vanw2• 17 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thurston

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erd%C5%91s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall

zkz: Maybe you are boring.

(note: The wikipedia articles linked to don't generally tell you why the subject isn't dull. In some cases the stories may need to be heard from people who knew the scientist in question, as there doesn't seem to be any written record to link to.)

bouncingsoul• 17 years ago

Why are you insulting zkz? Submitting an article doesn't mean you agree with it.

justin_vanw2• 17 years ago

Good point, I thought this was an Ask HN for some reason.

jemmons• 17 years ago

Maybe because none of them have mercury poisoning?

cool-RR4• 17 years ago

I haven't finished reading it yet, but I'd say I generally agree that scientists today are dull. They don't have a sense of mission. They have little ambition. They seem more like bureaucrats than scientists.

I am trying to separate myself from this trend. (I am currently studying physics independently.)

I can recall a few conversations with scientists that re-affirm this observation. One time I phoned a certain doctor of physics at the Hebrew University. (His field is something related to building a quantum computer.) We had a friendly chat about some things in physics, he seemed nice. Then we got to the topic of me studying physics independently, without trying to obtain a degree for it. He asked me, "Why are you studying physics then?" I said, "To discover the laws of the universe." He said, "Seriously now, why?"

dinkumthinkum5• 17 years ago

Why do you say that scientists to day are dull and don't have a sense of a mission? I really feel, since I never see any real evidence, that these sort of claims are just self-serving.

Your example of the physics professor is fine, in that you actually provided an example, but I'm not sure that is a fair evaluation. 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.

Sure, there people like Srinivasa Ramanujan but they are very, very rare. I think there is too much made about autodidactism. There are many autodidacts. However, how many autodidacts take their learning to such a rigorous degree? Now, compare that with how many people read a few books on physics and are very interested in it but never come close to that level of sophistication.

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."

I think that is a bridge too far.

cool-RR4• 17 years 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.

Zancarius2• 17 years ago

I bet they would be more exciting if armed with a crowbar. :)

dinkumthinkum5• 17 years ago

I can say I'm not very surprised to see these kinds of sloppy, hand-wavy, unscientific arguments proferred by an evolutionary psychiatrist.

zxcvb• 17 years ago

You've clearly never seen Dr Brian Cox the "Rock-star physicist"

http://www.ted.com/talks/brian_cox_on_cern_s_supercollider.h...

jleyank• 17 years ago

Some of the "problem" might be that things are a bit more entreprenurial than previously. Now, if you've got a wild idea (that just might be right) and you've got the ego to go with it, you can start a company and profit from it. Way more $$ in that than academia.

Similarly, there's more $$ in working in industry with a PhD rather than academia. And the tenure/grant game requires those in academia to have political and social skills that might be off-putting to the smart/driven set being talked about.

Finally, it's possible we're just not that interested in scientists/engineers (as in the 50's and 60's). Better to know what Lindsay Lohan's up to... There's like an hour of entertainment news EVERY DAY, and maybe a science article or two per quarter.

Followup: Rephrasing my Lohan comment - there might be all sorts of interesting scientists out there, but how would any of us know unless they're in the field? Rock stars, nowadays, aren't big-name scientists like they used to be. They're just rock stars...

ggchappell• 17 years ago

Are they? Sure, compared to the great scientists of the past.

But that word "great" is important.

As a general rule, when you compare the best things in one category with the average things in another, the first category tends to come out looking better.

See also various comparisons in music, literature, etc., etc.

Why are modern scientists so dull?

Related Stories