Pitfalls of self-guided science (2004)

This really speaks to a lack of infrastructure for people who are interested in scientific topics beyond the generalist level provided for in US schools. If there had been a legitimate and clear pipeline for him as a teenager to be mentored by a nuclear engineer, none of this would've happened.

I had a friend with similar proclivities and eccentricities who was fortunate enough to have a father that worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. His studies were directed and safe, he was able to visit the lab on a regular basis, and he ended up going to MIT and becoming a nuclear engineer. It's entirely an issue of access, and a lot of times you literally have to be born into it, which seems like an inefficient system.

and the "pitfalls of university-guided science" : the profiteering , monopoly on knowledge, textbook cartels, underpaid TA's teaching instead of profs, unfair grading systems, unfair advantages to athletes. I could go on.

Not to say university is the only way to study science, but its the "official" way.

"Silverstein's book is a stark reminder that a vivid imagination is not sufficient to create a real scientific breakthrough, though sometimes it can initiate one. In the end, knowledge is needed, and that comes about, I have found, only through education, study," ... the means, the opportunity, the mentors and peers, the right attitude to "fit in", huge amounts of luck in a byzantine selection process, an otherwise impeccable history, the willpower to strike a balance between obsequiousness and bravado, the timing to align an original method or idea with the work of your mentors, allowing them to co-opt your work for profit and personal gain, looking good in a suit, family connections ... "and lots of experience."

Interesting perspective on that story; thanks for sharing!