Hacker News Reader

Comment by xiaoma | Hacker News Reader

>"Lookup Musk on Wikipedia and you'll find that he has a BSc. only, and he started a PhD only to quit after a few weeks to pursue his business endeavors."

Three of the most important scientific papers in modern history—uncovering the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion and the special theory of relativity—were written about a hundred years ago by a man who could only sign them "Mr." when first writing them. About 80 years before that, another physicist who had no formal schooling past the age of 14 was pioneering advances in humanity's understanding of electricity and magnetism.

Science isn't restricted to or based on credentialed people. If you look at the history of science, credentials and recognition often follow groundbreaking scientific work.

View on HN

A hundred years ago you could reach the frontier in theoretical physics without a decade of intensive study. That's no longer true.

Yeah, science is just so hard these days.

Regardless of the century, the credential is not the defining characteristic of science.

That's not why anyone gets a PhD. The training is designed to teach you research. Unlike any other schooling, the degree has little class work.

The PhD is essentially an apprenticeship to a practicing scientist.

I would be really interested in someone elaborating on this idea "phd is an apprenticeship for researchers".

Several people have insisted that I should go into a phd program, but when I looked into it I saw a lot of: learn how to do grant applications, publish this non-reproducible and barely significant result just so you have something published, work on a phd adviser's bad idea so he can take the credit, etc.

If you're working on an idea no one has had before, what kinds of support can others give you and do modern phd programs give that support?

Much more important than the idea is the process you learn how to vet and research the idea. That is the 'support'. Now I can independently expand on my own ideas, and reject unpromising ones. Some are born with this skill, but many who think they have it... don't.

A PhD isn't really about doing something useful, although that is typically a result. It's learning how to explore an idea and expand upon it.

Your advisor does not lead you as much as guide you. Hence the name.

While the dangers you mentioned are absolutely a threat, much of that can be mitigated by choosing a good advisor. Personally I think taking a tenured, well established prof is a better bet, because they aren't as worried about their own career advancement. But everyones mileage varies.

To expand on my original idea: imagine being given an opportunity to work closely with a recognized expert in your field. For years he will meet with you, advise you and honestly try to help you also become a world authority on this subject. Afterwards, he will always support your career and care for your future. That's what I have, and while I certainly feel fortunate, I would not call my situation atypical.

I'm happy to provide more info.

> Now I can independently expand on my own ideas, and reject unpromising ones.

Unpromising in what sense? Unpromising for you personally, or for the greater good of humanity?

Research always comes with a risk. It is called "re-search" and not "re-find" for a reason. You can learn some heuristics that will help you explore, but it is certainly no guarantee for finding anything.

> You can learn some heuristics that will help you explore, but it is certainly no guarantee for finding anything.

Agree. Those heuristics were precisely what I was alluding to. It is all about how you explore that space. The best researchers have an amazing ability to intuitively ascertain promising directions. Many smart folks I know constantly spin their wheels working on problems that are intractable.

To me, that ability is the principle value add of a senior PI (aside from funding, of course!)

Yep, over-reliance on rationality, overspecialization and dogmatic thinking are huge problems with the current academic landscape. Faraday and young Einstein thought about problems in a fundamentally different way. In fact, when Einstein became firmly entrenched in the establishment and started approaching everything from the math first perspective, he failed to make further progress.

Another interesting anecdote is that on the crowd sourcing platform innocentive, the majority of problems (which have stumped fortune 500 R&D departments) are solved by people outside the domain of the problem.

At the same time, how many of the 3 are (were) doing scientific work?

> Science isn't restricted to or based on credentialed people.

You are correct, but what other evidence do we have showing whether these people are scientists?

Einstein finished his doctorate in 1905. He certainly was entitled to be prefixed "Dr." in 1906.

All three papers mentioned were published in 1905, also known as his Annus Mirabilis. The one that won him the Nobel Prize was received in March, before he'd even finished his thesis (on a different topic). The work itself was done prior to submission, of course.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers

Reply on news.ycombinator.com