"Interesting choice of analogy (research as "bone finding", which is research itself)"
I think the "bone finding" is less important (for the purposes of the analogy) than the distinction between actively looking for small vs big results.
I know there are many PhDs on this board so I'll ask something I have always been curious about.
Is it possible for a hacker to teach himself to do research?Is "research" fundamentally different from hacking? ( in terms of learning how to do it; most good hackers are self taught)
Or is going though a structured process or some kind of apprenticeship to a good researcher a necessity?
I don't doubt that most competent self-taught hackers could learn to do CS research if they were interested. A passionate interest in the learning new things, without waiting for someone else to teach you, is fundamental to teaching yourself to hack, and that same attitude is the main component of doing research. imho the biggest difference between hacking and doing 'research' is the mental shift from building something to creating new knowledge, whether it is a way of solving a problem, or something more abstract.
The most valuable things I've gotten out of the formal process has been the built-in mentorship provided by a good supervisor, the community of fellow students, and the opportunity to work on something with no immediate economic value. If you have the time/money, and don't mind harassing strangers via email you can get some of that without going to school for it. Still, if that mentorship, community, and money wasn't valuable, no one would be applying to ycombinator.
I don't think that "hacking" is fundamentally different than research, in the sense that they're both forms of problem solving. The difference is one of purpose and mind-set: a good researcher is more interested in proof-of-new-concept than in implementation and polish.
"Is going though a structured process or some kind of apprenticeship to a good researcher a necessity?"
Theoretically? No. Ideas are ideas. Anyone can have good ones.
Practically speaking? Yes. If nothing else, you need the time and training to become familiar with your field, the terminology and protocols in common use, and the boundaries that define interesting problems. Furthermore, most cutting-edge research is expensive; you need the apprenticeship before anyone will take you seriously enough to give you the money needed to do interesting work.
Furthermore, most cutting-edge research is expensive; you need the apprenticeship before anyone will take you seriously enough to give you the money needed to do interesting work.
This is a key observation. One of my advisors put it thus:
A PhD is just a union card. What you do with it is up to you.
You can use it to establish credibility in certain lines of work; you can use it to command a higher salary in industry; you can simply apply the things you've learned in some totally unrelated field. A surprising number of people choose the latter.
I heard a presentation once from a consultant who people hired to help get government grants. Does the funding rate go up a whole lot if you hire someone to rewrite your proposal?
Does the funding rate go up a whole lot if you hire someone to rewrite your proposal?
Depends on their name, the journals and review boards they sit on, and their current interests vice yours. The clever thing to do if you have good juice is simply to get their name on it.
I work with some people who rarely get turned down, and others (in the past) who often have. It's more fun to work with the former, if you have the choice, but sometimes the topics end up being a little less interesting.
From my limited experience, I'd say most hacking is using the results from research to get shit done - Not that hacking isn't great, its just not generally research. However, it'd be pretty hard to "hack" a new filesystem without a research component. But designing a website doesn't usually involve much research (learning a framework isn't research in the sense i'm trying to describe). Designing a new web framework could be research because you need to test different ways of doing things and people might use your results.
Where normal design and normal engineering turn into research isn't the easiest thing to define. Man, this comment isn't working out as well as I'd hoped.
>Is it possible for a hacker to teach himself to do research?
I don't know a single good researcher who doesn't fit that description.
However, I do recommend some flavor of apprenticeship (1). A good mentor will suggest useful bones to search for, and act as a tour guide to stuff that already exists.
A comment like "did you know that in the 80's, $BIGNAME tried to do $X with $Y (not $Z), take a look" can save you LOTS of time.
(1) The useful part of the PhD is the apprenticeship to your advisor. If you can get the apprenticeship without the PhD, take it.
I think the "bone finding" is less important (for the purposes of the analogy) than the distinction between actively looking for small vs big results.
I know there are many PhDs on this board so I'll ask something I have always been curious about.
Is it possible for a hacker to teach himself to do research?Is "research" fundamentally different from hacking? ( in terms of learning how to do it; most good hackers are self taught)
Or is going though a structured process or some kind of apprenticeship to a good researcher a necessity?