/sci/ - Science & Math

there's no such thing as good enough; thinking in terms of what you'll accomplish or how many scientific discoveries you make that get people to love you is what will ensure you end up with a pathetic career. Just start learning as best you can, because it interests you. If they don't interest you, then you're learning the wrong things or your mind has been warped by the over-stimulation of pop culture. The first possibility resolves itself with continuous effort, and the second involves abstaining from TV,movies,games,anime,and this place which I personally justify because it's a form of active interaction and you can practice communication skills..to some extent. But the main point I'm making is that there's no such thing as not being good enough for science, and inferiority's a delusional notion that only holds you back; if there's a problem with your level of motivation or interest then you need to address the cause for those before moving onto actual science/what you'd call "meaningful learning"

>>4477515

QFFT.

I personally am pursuing a degree in physics not because I expect to make astonishing scientific discoveries, or publish world-changing papers, but because I want to publish children's books.

That's right. Children's books.
I want to write books about science, to get children interested in it.

If I one day inspire the next Einstein to go to college instead of working at his dad's patent office the rest of his life? That is, in my mind, as good as being the next Einstein myself.

I kinda feel the same way, I am terrible at math. I was an idiot as a child and never paid attention during math class. Anyone know any tips/sites or something that can get me up to speed?

>>4477515
I feel you're very right about that.
I kind of want to accomplish a lot, though. I can't help but feel that way.
It seems as if glory is an inextricable aspect of what I desire in life; perhaps that's only natural.

nail on the head OP, i know exactly how you feel. i really like science and all but i feel like unless you are taught by some one who knows the right path you will be lost in an avalanche of information.

math is another issue. What do i study? how does this relate to that? how can i use what i made here over there? is anyone going to even know what i'm talking about? has anyone made this already?

so many questions, so many wrong paths, so little time to research.

>>4477515
Yeah, that's all well and good until someone asks you to perform at a certain level in an undergraduate or graduate level STEM field. Not everyone can do it.

If we all could be whatever we wanted to be, life would be easy. Not the case. At some point you have to get realistic about what you can accomplish.

There are plenty of people with great abilities in deductive reasoning, critical analysis/observation, logical inference, etc, that will forever struggle in the sciences because the math doesn't come easy enough to them. Extremely smart people by virtually any standard, but their brains simply aren't wired for abstract, quantitative reasoning. They are totally capable of getting the concepts, but it will never be second nature to them the way it is to others. A fairly large handicap to have considering math basically is the language of certain sciences.

I agree with you 100% that science is not out of anyone's reach in general. You can right your own rules and be whatever type of scientist suits you. But that really just doesn't cut it if you realistically want to make a living in the field.

OP, do your best, go as far as you can go, and don't be afraid to acknowledge your limits when you reach them.

You could get a degree in feminism

>>4477957

>implying brains are "wired" in such a static way that skills and ways of thinking like the one we're discussing couldn't be achieved through neuroplasticity

>I am passionate about science but i dont think i am good enough. What can i do /sci/? Anyone else here feel the same way?

What do you think separates you from the people who are "good enough"? (And, no, other undergrads don't fucking count.) Grad students, post-docs, PIs, etc. weren't born as great scientists. They didn't walk into a lab as freshmen and start churning out Nature papers. They worked to get where they are. They practiced. And practiced. And practiced. For years, decades even. How were they driven to do this? They had a passion for their research. They couldn't see themselves doing anything else.

Discipline and persistence defeats sheer intelligence. If you have the passion, you'll be willing to put in the time.

>>4477957
>do your best, go as far as you can go, and don't be afraid to acknowledge your limits when you reach them

This.

I gave the mechanical engineering PhD a shot, and it just wasn't gonna happen for me. I was working twice as hard as everyone else to get results that were half as good. Was completely miserable.

I took a consulting job instead and I'm extremely comfortable where I am.

You read books. Here's a few hundred to get you started: http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/39940146/physics+complete?tab=summary
See the /sci/ guide for more.

>>4477552
Manly tears were shed.

one of the best threads i have seen in /sci/

>>4477980
>implying there aren't limits to how much people's brains can grow/adapt and that they aren't different from individual to individual

>>4477462

Shit, I'm studying EE and I've been feeling like that lately too, thanks for creating this thread OP.

Yeah, not everyone are cut out to be a scientist. Just the brutal truth I'm afraid, but there is clearly a difference in how gifted different people are. Hard work makes up for some, but to really succeed you need to both work hard and be talented. Academia is quite a competitive world. Its kind of sad, really, we should fund research and science a lot more so that many more people could do research. Just think how much money goes into the military, if only like 10 percent were directed to science :\

>>4477515

QFFT