An open letter to /sci/fags

[None !jWmHX4Tvlk No.2742781]

Hey guys, just wanted to have a bit of a discussion. I, and a small minority of others here, are fairly well educated. Several of us are graduate students in sciences, engineering, mathematics, etc. We don't know everything, but we've been humbled for years in the academic life, and we see ourselves years ago as you act now. So please, consider these words.

1) Stop comparing areas of study and ranking them. It's stupid, and it makes you look stupid. Princeton is pushing an interdisciplinary approach:
“Any budding researcher needs a foundation in several fields to be able to work on the most important problems confronting scientists today…”
— David Botstein, director, Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics

This is entirely true. I'm consistently amazed by the level of scientific discourse I can have with people in fields a layman (like yourself) would consider completely different. i.e., I see chemists, molecular biologists, materials engineers, aerospace engineers, and military men collaborating on projects. We are all better for working with each other.

[None !jWmHX4Tvlk No.2742798]

2) Stop asking questions like "how do I get into string theory without knowing any academic material beyond a high school level?" It's just ridiculous. A tiny minority of us have actually published peer-reviewed research. In order to get to the point where we could even understand a tiny fraction of the field we're interested in, enough that we could actually make some tiny contribution, it took us years of hard work in the fundamentals of math/physics/chemistry/engineering/whatever. Don't tell us that you "understand the fundamentals of string theory and you want to read doctoral dissertations on it" while you say "but I don't know what a differential is."

Math/engineering/science/physics is fun and exciting, but much more so when you start to get a *real* understanding of it. Academic journals are not written for high schoolers. When we write, our intended audience is others with significant knowledge in the field. It's great that you're excited about science, but denigrate it's accomplishments by suggesting you can become an adolescent philosopher on the topics.

[Anonymous No.2742802]

True bro.

You cannot gather all of the current human knowledge during a human life

[None !jWmHX4Tvlk No.2742829]

3) Drop the arrogance. I believe the median poster here is around a college sophomore level, based on discourse. Maybe you had some great professors tell you that you can do anything. Maybe your freshman instructor told you that your major ______ is vastly superior to all other majors because _____. Maybe you grew up the smartest guy on the block. But look, I don't want to totally strike down your eagerness here, but quit it. Humility is a learned attribute. I used to be like you, and so did many successful scientists, mathematicians, and engineers I know. But we all learned something. The more we learned, the more we learned we didn't know. When we were at your academic level, we couldn't even comprehend the awareness of the problems that trouble us now. Einstein once said

>Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater.

You don't appreciate this statement now. In a few years of study, maybe you will. At some point, "doing science" goes from doing silly canned problems on pieces of paper submitted for doing grades (i.e. what you struggle with now), and it goes to seeing the hardest problems associated with these fields and wondering how to fix them. It takes an intense breadth and depth of knowledge to be able to tackle problems in math and science. You don't have it yet, and that's okay. We know we don't have it either.

[Anonymous No.2742830]

>>2742798
People being excited enough about science and learning to push the limits of their knowledge in attempting to understand something as complex and convoluted as string theory, especially high schoolers, is something to be encouraged. More and more I'm finding that the average person knows very little of math or science, and what's worse is that they care equally as little about their shortcomings.

Furthermore, there have been plenty of high school students that have derived graduate level formulas, or manipulated equations find new physical applications for mathematical principles.

Just because you're an old and accomplished graduate student doesn't mean these people are below you. Yes, they're probably naive in assuming they can grasp such complex topics with so little formal education, but I give them kudos for trying.

[None !jWmHX4Tvlk No.2742831]

Let's open for questions and comments. Please preface your statement by your level of education and age, so that we might improve the quality of discourse on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.2742839]

Even if all fields of study were equally necessary and useful to the future progress of science and society, which is obviously horseshit anyway, that doesn't mean that all fields of study are equally difficult and should subsequently possess the same level of intellectual kudos.

Your reasoning is based around some axiomatic, emotional view that we shouldn't say that scientific subjects are anything but equal because that would hurt people's feelings.

Physics is obviously more difficult than chemistry or biology. Maths is obviously more difficult than physics. There are differing levels of intellectual kudos associate with each acordingly. This is what gets ranked.

I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, mr. ecology major or whatever.

[Anonymous No.2742844]

>>2742839
logician up in this bitch.
dat logic

[None !jWmHX4Tvlk No.2742845]

>>2742830
>People being excited enough about science and learning to push the limits of their knowledge in attempting to understand something as complex and convoluted as string theory, especially high schoolers, is something to be encouraged. More and more I'm finding that the average person knows very little of math or science, and what's worse is that they care equally as little about their shortcomings.
Agreed, with all of it. Unfortunately many of these high schoolers don't care about their shortcomings with fundamental math, science and engineering. One can't debate the philosophy of string theory without understanding the mathematics behind it. So when such a person argues about something they don't understand, and rejects the notion that they should learn the "boring" math aspect of it, well...

>Furthermore, there have been plenty of high school students that have derived graduate level formulas, or manipulated equations find new physical applications for mathematical principles.
Example of groundbreaking work by high schoolers? I'm sure at some point I copied the derivation of Euler's formula during high school; that doesn't mean I could really grasp the implications, or have ever come up with it myself.

[Anonymous No.2742852]

>>2742844
wannabe mathmo.

[None !jWmHX4Tvlk No.2742857]

>>2742839
>Physics is obviously more difficult than chemistry or biology. Maths is obviously more difficult than physics.
Okay, "logician." Saying something is "obvious" doesn't make it true. This is a stupid fucking statement, and you clearly have little education. Furthermore, all fields are interdisciplinary.... I have published articles in high impact journals that have published work by people with degrees in chemistry, physics, math, computer science, aerospace engineering, civil engineering, computational finance, and biology. Yet, all of those people were working on the same fundamental problem.

[Anonymous No.2742859]

Age 21

How do I settle on a major? I'm considering molecular biology and genetics at the moment.

[Anonymous No.2742862]

>Physics is obviously more difficult than chemistry or biology. Maths is obviously more difficult than physics.
It depends more upon what interests you than a simple, my subject is more difficult herp derp. if you find a subject interesting you will be able to study it easier than a subject you found boring.

[Anonymous No.2742863]

your level of education and age
Fuck that jack I like to go and act like a 12 year old boy sometimes. If I want quality discourse I can get that at work or one of the million other highly modded boards on the net.

[Anonymous No.2742864]

>>2742839
>equates difficulty of study with difficulty of original research

i also dispute your difficulty of study rankings. it's probably just your subjective experience. i find maths much, much easier than chem or physics, which is why i'm a maths graduate.

[None !jWmHX4Tvlk No.2742868]

>>2742859
>How do I settle on a major? I'm considering molecular biology and genetics at the moment.
First, don't take my word for it, since I'm a dick on the internet, but hopefully you already knew that.

I'd want to know what level you're at... are you just starting college?

My advice to people that are just starting college: just pick something you think you'd probably like, going in. Don't stress about it. For practically all math/science/engineering areas, your first year will be generally identical, and you often won't lose any time at all off graduation if you change after that first year.

During that first year, go to seminars. Lots and lots of them. There will be good visiting researchers giving talks at any decent university... but don't just go to those. You won't fully understand their material anyway. But go to the senior thesis/design/project presentations in any area you think you might be interested in. You'll see what you can do in 4 years time. Go to these presentations for every major you think you might have a remote interest in. Let that guide you. If you see work that you found to be simultaneously stimulating and challenging, then go for that.

[Anonymous No.2742871]

>>2742857
>Saying something is "obvious" doesn't make it true.
durr hurr no shit.

Do you actually think getting a degree in biology is as challenging as getting a degree in physics?
Or are you just espousing that belief because it might hurt some biologists' feelings?

[Anonymous No.2742873]

>>2742845
Einstein wrote, "The Investigation of the State of Aether in Magnetic Fields" at age 16.

Aether refers to the idea of the "Luminiferous Ether" that was thought to be necessary for the travel of light.

This got him thinking about light, and was used as a reference later in the formation of his theory of relativity.

[None !jWmHX4Tvlk No.2742876]

>>2742864
>i also dispute your difficulty of study rankings. it's probably just your subjective experience. i find maths much, much easier than chem or physics, which is why i'm a maths graduate.

Absolutely. I would find considerable more "difficulty" in graduate study in philosophy or psychology than in the applied sciences area I'm in. I do what i enjoy, so while others consider it "difficult," and I do put in a lot of hours, I enjoy it and it doesn't feel like work.

[Anonymous No.2742877]

>>2742864
I didn't say anything about ongoing research. Cool projecting.

[None !jWmHX4Tvlk No.2742884]

>>2742873
Interesting, I'm not familiar with it. Can you comment on the level of mathematical and physical sophistication involved?

Clearly, Einstein is not a typical case...

[None !jWmHX4Tvlk No.2742887]

>>2742871
In the academic world, no one is interested in your baccalaureate qualifications. At a graduate level, biologists and physicists often work together.

[Anonymous No.2742892]

>>2742887
with biologists doing glorified lab technician work and physicists using sophisticated mathematics.

[Anonymous No.2742899]

>>2742887
You're avoiding the question I posed to you.

[Anonymous No.2742900]

>>2742892

So chemistry's a little bit of both eh?

[Anonymous No.2742905]

Some people learn better over a longer time by exploring complex topics and working down to the basics. (It can be different for the short term)

The American school system often works from the basics up, where real world examples are given in an attempt to correlate basics to real world applications (students some times like to use the excuse 'I'll never use this in the real world', but they often won't change their work ethic or attitude even when given a good example).

I think both ways of learning are legitimate, and the former is probably more common with self-starter types because the school system doesn't really support that method of learning. These types of people are also probably more rare than the other type, but you couldn't give an accurate statistic of that.

I'd say don't avoid trying to talk about higher level topics to underqualified people just because they're underqualified. As long as there's a genuine interest to explore it casually, it should benefit people.

[Anonymous No.2742910]

>We don't know everything, but we've been humbled for years in the academic life,

Scientists aren't academics.

[Anonymous No.2742914]

>>2742900
Most of the maths in chemistry is kiddy shit compared to the maths being done in physics at the same level.

[Anonymous No.2742927]

The paper was garbage. It was mostly wrong, but at the same time he had as stronger grasp on the concepts of E&M at 16 years old than many of the foremost scientists in that field at the time.

He talks about the properties of the Aether, and how the propagation of light as an electron travels through the aether creates a string of magnetic fields. He also describes the elastic nature of the aether a description that fits closely with his later works, namely his model of space-time and its relationship with gravity.

I can't find it on the web right now, but I'm fairly certain there was an autistic mathematical savant who solved a million dollar proof. I'll have to get back to you on that...

[Anonymous No.2742929]

>>2742877
so you just regard the sciences as just learning things people already did?

cool tunnel vision bro.

my guess is you are still in high school.

[Anonymous No.2742936]

>>2742839
dude. just. wat.

no science is "harder" than the other. they are utterly different.
I'll give you that there might be fewer people who truly have the capability to understand true high-level math than anything else due to brain wiring and innate skill.

that however, does not speak of the "hard"-factor of a science.

[Anonymous No.2742938]

>>2742929

>so you just regard the sciences as just learning things people already did?

This is what all undergraduate programs are. Regardless of their subject matter or "difficulty", you're playing follow the leader.

If you actually think anyone gives a shit what you think about anything in your field then you're kidding yourself. About 5 or so scientists actually do anything new in a decade. You aren't one of them and you never will be.

[Anonymous No.2742943]

>>2742914
>doesn't know much about anything

[Anonymous No.2742944]

>>2742781

/sci/ is a lost cause, i feel bad for the replies you got.

[Anonymous No.2742949]

>>2742839
I have a bachelors in biology/microbiology and currently I'm a grad in maths.
Why?
Because I find maths much easier even at this level than I ever found biology. Trololol.

[Anonymous No.2742951]

>>2742938
>misses point. makes assumptions. probably borderline retarded.
i'm not in academia.

and you are repeating back the point i just made to me without understanding why i made it.

your view of the sciences is just what goes on at an undergrad level and this is what you base your (utterly flawed) judgement on.

to judge which science is better harder or whatever juvenile thing you have going on, we would be stupid just to focus on the undergraduate level, which is basically kiddy stuff.

[Anonymous No.2742958]

>>2742951

>repeating back the point i just made to me
>i'm not in academia.

You don't say

[Anonymous No.2742962]

is the blowhard itt the same anon

[Anonymous No.2742970]

>>2742958
>thinks missed grammar means anything to an argument

ok, so you just want to be a jerk on the internet. have 3 internet points

[Anonymous No.2742972]

>>2742970

>thinks mistaking the word "you" for "i" is grammar.

[Anonymous No.2742977]

>>2742972
>thinks grammatical person isn't grammar.

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

[Anonymous No.2742984]

>>2742977

>getting that wrong on the internet and not in conversation

[None !jWmHX4Tvlk No.2742989]

>>2742927
See, interesting. At least, 16 year old Einstein belligerently cry that he didn't need to know math.

[Anonymous No.2742992]

>>2742984
>having to backpedal

[None !jWmHX4Tvlk No.2742999]

>>2742910
>Scientists aren't academics.
Serious logic fail.

>>2742938
>This is what all undergraduate programs are. Regardless of their subject matter or "difficulty", you're playing follow the leader.
Absolutely. The only hope is that by learning how smarter people came up with innovative solutions, that those will somehow rub off on undergrads, and in the future they can apply creative thought to solve problems.

[None !jWmHX4Tvlk No.2743004]

>>2742944
One anon gets it. Feels batman.

[Anonymous No.2743008]

ITT

[Anonymous No.2743236]

welp, gj sci. you faggots hate science more than any fundie.

[Anonymous No.2743309]

>>2742781

I'm too stupid to understand science and mathematics, but I'm a huge fan of both.

I really appreciate all the hard work you all do to allow to the human race to take steps further in this massive universe. Rock on.

[Anonymous No.2743546]

bump. fucking /sci/.

[None !jWmHX4Tvlk No.2744094]

>>2742781
Wow, are there really so few sciducks with actual education that my points go ignored? Sad.

[Anonymous No.2744172]

They don't call them sophomores for nothing ;-).

"probably influenced by Greek sophos, wise, and mros, stupid"

[Anonymous No.2744217]

>>2744172
Moros is more like childlike in behavior, but yeah.