>And another thing: Only geniuses (or cranks) head straight for the grandest and most fundamental problems. You should multiply the importance of the problem by the probability that you’ll solve it and maximize that product.
A note here: when it comes to discovery, motivation is vastly more important than competence and every disciplined effort will lead to greater understanding or a serendipitous result of some kind.
On the other hand, nobody can know the probability that he'll solve a problem.
Yet important problems can be reliably identified. What I'm trying to point out is that there's nothing wrong with going after the big ones.
>But I’m hopeful this log-jam will be temporary, and that new opportunities are opening up for aspiring scientists.
To put this in context he has also stated he thinks that civilisation has only a 50% chance of surviving this century. Another reason for tackling big problems IMO.
>he has also stated he thinks that civilisation has only a 50% chance of surviving this century.
I can't understand this line of thinking.
Human civilization has been around for ~10,000 years, and in the past two centuries nearly every metric related to human well-being has improved (see The Rational Optimist or Enlightenment Now).
And this isn't coming at the expense of the natural world, which is better protected as the world gets more technologically advanced and wealthier (More From Less by Andrew McAfee and numerous other sources).
Why would all of this reverse so rapidly in the next 80 years?
Even if we can derive 'more from less', the massive absolute amount that we are deriving is large enough to have significant negative ramifications, such as global heating and all that implies.
On top of that, the number of nations armed with nuclear weapons capable of igniting a conflict that could wipe out the majority of civilization in weeks continues to grow. That's certainly not a context that has been present for thousands of years; rather less than 80.
It takes a very small number of people willing to use nuclear weapons for the bad side of the prediction to come true
And 80 years is a long time for mad people to come to power - if our current worldwide political landscape is any indication, democracy may be a trigger rather than a deterrent for nuclear destruction, in the sense that it may select for progressively more extremist leaders
Have you guys coordinated with some of the other agencies out there? I'm a big fan and supporter of the Thriving Earth Exchange and part of their goals is to help with citizen science as well as education.
I hadn't heard of TEE, thanks for the link. We have not yet had the opportunity to collaborate with other agencies (outside of interactions with gov institutions), but are eager to do so.
This quote makes me cringe:
"The great ecologist E.O. Wilson avers that to be effective in some scientific fields it’s actually best not to be too bright."
Certainly there's merit in exercising a certain degree of rigour, much of scientific work can be boring, but yeesh, "not too bright" sums up the old boys' club right there doesn't it? If you can't be judged on merit, what will you be judged on, eh?
And then there's this doozy:
"Only geniuses (or cranks) head straight for the grandest and most fundamental problems."
Completely ignoring the fact that understanding that a particular problem is the grandest in the field requires a modicum of understanding of the field itself. And should we condemn someone to make their life's calling no bolder than coming up with a better lamp-post or cataloguing all the insects in the garden?
Finally, a nugget of truth in this travesty:
"Fifty years ago, my generation benefited from the fact that the science profession was still growing exponentially, riding on the expansion of higher education. Then, the young outnumbered the old; moreover, it was normal (and generally mandatory) to retire by one’s mid-60s."
Emphasis [mine] on mandatory. Let's bring that back. Speaking of which, Martin, why haven't you retired yet??
I would love to tear this article apart, quote by quote. But, as a practicing scientist, I, quite frankly, lack the bandwidth.
I have found all articles like this written by senior established scientists can be summarised as “Looks like things aren’t as good as they used to be. Anecdote about old scientists 1, 2, 3. Science is important. The end.” They never say anything about actual scientists born after 1975. This is the very definition of pontification.
When I was at my old physics lab I did a back of the envelope calculation for how much I was getting paid an hour given the work they expected me to do.
It was less than I would have made flipping burgers.
That was the end of my scientific career.
>I have known more people whose lives have been ruined by getting a Ph.D. in physics than by drugs.
>Certainly there's merit in exercising a certain degree of rigour, much of scientific work can be boring, but yeesh, "not too bright" sums up the old boys' club right there doesn't it? If you can't be judged on merit, what will you be judged on, eh?
Who said people shouldn't be judged on merit? The point being made in
the article is not that it's literally better to not be too bright,
but that being intellectually capable of working on something than the
Grand Unified Theory of Everything (or The Cure to Cancer or The
Riemann Hypothesis or whatever the equivalent is in each field) is
necessary if you want to have a good career in science.
Ultimately, the chances that a scientist at the beginning of their
career will be able to make a significant contribution to such a big
project that so many intelligent people have spent so many decades
(centuries in the case of some mathematical problems) trying to solve.
It's not a good career decision (or a good life decision) for a young
mathematician to spend the crucial early years of their career trying
to solve the Riemann hypothesis. 9999 times out of 10000 they'll fail
to make any significant contribution to the problem, because they're
not ready to yet, and then will struggle to build a career when
they've just wasted years of their life, publishing nothing,
contributing nothing, learning nothing.
Maybe you're a true genius and make headway on one of the grandest and
most fundamental of problems. But most people, even most young
academics, are not geniuses. They would be far better served working
on smaller, more realistically achievable goals.
The point of the quote (that it is best to be "not too bright") is
that there seems to be a gap between people that are "normal" enough
that they're intellectually capable of working on something small and
people that are "genius" enough to be intellectually capable of
actually making progress on something huge. Between that you get
people that are "too bright" to work on small problems but not
actually smart enough (or lucky enough in their choice of approach or
whatever other reason) to solve the Riemann hypothesis or P=NP or
Quantum Gravity or whatever.
If you're a genius, you can do it. If you're a decently smart person
that's not so smart they've never experienced failure in any academic
endeavour, you won't try. But if you're in between it's not uncommon
for people to feel like they're too good for the small problems, even
when they're not good enough for the big ones. So they waste their
lives and ruin their careers being too ambitious. Some of them give
up, others become cranks when they can't handle the idea that they've
failed and rationalise their failure as the system being out to get
them, the world not being ready for their genius, etc.
Or in other, more concise, words: "to be effective in some scientific
fields it’s actually best not to be too bright. Only geniuses (or
cranks) head straight for the grandest and most fundamental problems."
In my own field, fluid dynamics, Robert Kraichnan is very well respected and spent the majority of his career working as an independent scientist. As you suggested, math is cheap, so Kraichnan was a theorist.
Right. One recent example for an independent research in math is Yitang Zhang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitang_Zhang) who, after completing PhD at Purdue University, worked off jobs (accountant, etc.) for 8 years, while doing his research.
Sounds like now is a time for a return to philosophy! Much less capital intensive to be able to make a contribution by thinking, reading and discussing vs setting up a multimillion dollar research lab.
>And another thing: Only geniuses (or cranks) head straight for the grandest and most fundamental problems. You should multiply the importance of the problem by the probability that you’ll solve it and maximize that product.
This echoes something Terry Tao said:[0]
>There is a particularly dangerous occupational hazard in this subject: one can become focused, to the exclusion of other mathematical activity (and in extreme cases, on non-mathematical activity also), on a single really difficult problem in a field (or on some grand unifying theory) before one is really ready (both in terms of mathematical preparation, and also in terms of one’s career) to devote so much of one’s research time to such a project.
The "don't be too bright" advice matches what something Terry's said as well:[1]
>Does one have to be a genius to do mathematics?
>The answer is an emphatic NO. In order to make good and useful contributions to mathematics, one does need to work hard, learn one’s field well, learn other fields and tools, ask questions, talk to other mathematicians, and think about the “big picture”. And yes, a reasonable amount of intelligence, patience, and maturity is also required. But one does not need some sort of magic “genius gene” that spontaneously generates ex nihilo deep insights, unexpected solutions to problems, or other supernatural abilities.
Nowhere do they say that you shouldn't care about, think about, or try to solve big important unsolved problems. The point is that there is a lot of work out there that isn't the grand fundamental problems, that it's still really important work, and that you probably aren't ready to tackle those problems yet. Give them a go, but don't spend years of your early career trying to solve the Riemann hypothesis, because that's the route to publishing your work on vixra.
A note here: when it comes to discovery, motivation is vastly more important than competence and every disciplined effort will lead to greater understanding or a serendipitous result of some kind.
On the other hand, nobody can know the probability that he'll solve a problem.
Yet important problems can be reliably identified. What I'm trying to point out is that there's nothing wrong with going after the big ones.
>But I’m hopeful this log-jam will be temporary, and that new opportunities are opening up for aspiring scientists.
To put this in context he has also stated he thinks that civilisation has only a 50% chance of surviving this century. Another reason for tackling big problems IMO.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/185583.Our_Final_Hour