Education is overrated, since anyone with a decent IQ and a large reference library (say.. the Internet) can work out how to do things that you once needed a degree to do.
Unfortunately you are looking at university education only as a professional certification. I think that when I did my BSc and PhD I got a lot more from the university than a couple of pieces of paper than I can hang on the wall. I got to interact with a bunch of cool people, to participate in politics, to learn different philosophies of life. In summary... I got an education rather than just training.
Learning is not the sole responsibility of the teacher.
I completely agree. Both parties have a responsibility, and I always try to meet mine in the best posible way. Of course, it doesn't always work, and we are often swamped by the fundamentalism of the week;-)
Fine, you try explaining quantum theory to someone who can't program their VCR.
Why are researchers always whinning about being missunderstood? If you think people get it wrong, write to your local newspaper to correct the story, to provide facts, to HELP people understand.
If I disagree with the comments I read in the gardening section of the newspaper (referring to GMOs) I write a letter, trying to explain things. Most probably you are not going to use the genetical / mathematical / statistical details but, please, try to convey the meaning, use examples, think that you are explaining the ideas to your kids.
I don't know how to program a VCR, but I still manage to understand differencial calculus. Do not underestimate people all the time, just because they do not know about your topic. Maybe most of the explanations people have received are a pile of crap, and it is your responsability to help us understand what you are doing, so we stay interested in paying your salary / scholarship / etc.
A research scientist does not need to possess the above skill to be a good research scientist.
Well, not ALL research scientists need to have that ability, but it certainly makes life a lot easier.
By the way I've been in India watching a blockbuster movie (in 1998), and although you can not understand the words, you can understand what is going on, because they provide enough visual cues. Again, lay people may not understand the mathematical details of your presentation, but you still can do a good job explaining the implications and providing context.
You missed reason three: Inability of most scientists to present their research in an interesting and meaningful way to lay people. I work in research and looking at presentations done by some of my colleagues I wonder 'How do they want people to understand anything with such boring and complicated presentations?'
Communication skills are really important if you want people to first understand your research and, second, get excited enough to keep funding it.
In most cases I consider software as a tool, it can be very cool, but is the same as a screwdriver, a hammer, a computer, etc. My point is that if I get a public grant to do research in, say, genetics of frogs, my obligation is to provide results about genetics of frogs. I don't have any obligation about giving away the cool tool I buit to measure frog eyes, or to allow you using my lab, or to publish the piece of software that links my fancy tool to a computer. My obligation will be to publish anything I discover about the frogs.
Now, if the funding is exclusively for developing a cool program, well, in that case the program should be made available to the public. With source code? I don't know about that.
The money belongs to the People, dammit! So should the research. Usually only the results of the research belong to the people. You can have *free* access (well, may be you need to pay for a journal subscription) to published results. As you have probably realized, you don't have free access to a molecular genetics lab, a radiotelescope, a cyclotron or any of the tools funded by public money. You do have access to a piece of paper (or pdf file) with the description of the project and its results. Why software should be different?
Do you peer review when someone is building up a cyclotron? Do you even peer review scientific publication? I think the *obligation* to publish your source code is silly, and it is stopping many people to do real work in platforms that require so. If someone wants to publish the code great, but if they don't want to do it it is not a big deal. As someone paying taxes I do not care if the software is open source or not, only if the *results* (not every tool you needed to complete it) of the research are useful and available.
You are right. The idea of slow glass is in a short story by Bob Shaw (in 1966), called The Light of Other Days, later expanded in an novel. Actually, the commercial use proposed in this story is far cooler than quantum computing:-)
Woo, oxygen. If I remember my astrobiology correctly, this would be taken as a sign of life if it weren't on a planet four times the mass of jupiter, and with a year of less than four of your Earth days.
Just in case... Given that is 'only' 50 light years from earth we should start beaming Linux advocacy right away;-)
I completely agree with this. (Most) People from the US tend to ignore the developments outside their country. One extra data on cultural colonialism: why do Americans call themselves Americans? Haven't they ever realised there are several more countries in America apart from the US?
The journalist completely missed the point. There are already lots of other curves that you can use to fit 'non-normal' data (e.g. Weibull, Gamma, etc) that could be more appropriate than a normal curve. The link with chaos theory and the new distribution is interesting though.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought Slash would support characters like the ñ.
Education is overrated, since anyone with a decent IQ and a large reference library (say.. the Internet) can work out how to do things that you once needed a degree to do.
Unfortunately you are looking at university education only as a professional certification. I think that when I did my BSc and PhD I got a lot more from the university than a couple of pieces of paper than I can hang on the wall. I got to interact with a bunch of cool people, to participate in politics, to learn different philosophies of life. In summary... I got an education rather than just training.
Learning is not the sole responsibility of the teacher.
;-)
I completely agree. Both parties have a responsibility, and I always try to meet mine in the best posible way. Of course, it doesn't always work, and we are often swamped by the fundamentalism of the week
Fine, you try explaining quantum theory to someone who can't program their VCR.
Why are researchers always whinning about being missunderstood? If you think people get it wrong, write to your local newspaper to correct the story, to provide facts, to HELP people understand.
If I disagree with the comments I read in the gardening section of the newspaper (referring to GMOs) I write a letter, trying to explain things. Most probably you are not going to use the genetical / mathematical / statistical details but, please, try to convey the meaning, use examples, think that you are explaining the ideas to your kids.
I don't know how to program a VCR, but I still manage to understand differencial calculus. Do not underestimate people all the time, just because they do not know about your topic. Maybe most of the explanations people have received are a pile of crap, and it is your responsability to help us understand what you are doing, so we stay interested in paying your salary / scholarship / etc.
A research scientist does not need to possess the above skill to be a good research scientist.
Well, not ALL research scientists need to have that ability, but it certainly makes life a lot easier.
By the way I've been in India watching a blockbuster movie (in 1998), and although you can not understand the words, you can understand what is going on, because they provide enough visual cues. Again, lay people may not understand the mathematical details of your presentation, but you still can do a good job explaining the implications and providing context.
You missed reason three: Inability of most scientists to present their research in an interesting and meaningful way to lay people. I work in research and looking at presentations done by some of my colleagues I wonder 'How do they want people to understand anything with such boring and complicated presentations?'
Communication skills are really important if you want people to first understand your research and, second, get excited enough to keep funding it.
My $0.02
Naming the UT grads 'Longhorn' is an insult to the 'Longhorn' breed of cows everywhere! Can't they call themselves something else?
In most cases I consider software as a tool, it can be very cool, but is the same as a screwdriver, a hammer, a computer, etc. My point is that if I get a public grant to do research in, say, genetics of frogs, my obligation is to provide results about genetics of frogs. I don't have any obligation about giving away the cool tool I buit to measure frog eyes, or to allow you using my lab, or to publish the piece of software that links my fancy tool to a computer. My obligation will be to publish anything I discover about the frogs.
Now, if the funding is exclusively for developing a cool program, well, in that case the program should be made available to the public. With source code? I don't know about that.
The money belongs to the People, dammit! So should the research.
Usually only the results of the research belong to the people. You can have *free* access (well, may be you need to pay for a journal subscription) to published results. As you have probably realized, you don't have free access to a molecular genetics lab, a radiotelescope, a cyclotron or any of the tools funded by public money. You do have access to a piece of paper (or pdf file) with the description of the project and its results. Why software should be different?
Do you peer review when someone is building up a cyclotron? Do you even peer review scientific publication? I think the *obligation* to publish your source code is silly, and it is stopping many people to do real work in platforms that require so. If someone wants to publish the code great, but if they don't want to do it it is not a big deal. As someone paying taxes I do not care if the software is open source or not, only if the *results* (not every tool you needed to complete it) of the research are useful and available.
You are right. The idea of slow glass is in a short story by Bob Shaw (in 1966), called The Light of Other Days, later expanded in an novel. Actually, the commercial use proposed in this story is far cooler than quantum computing :-)
Have a look here
Woo, oxygen. If I remember my astrobiology correctly, this would be taken as a sign of life if it weren't on a planet four times the mass of jupiter, and with a year of less than four of your Earth days.
;-)
Just in case...
Given that is 'only' 50 light years from earth we should start beaming Linux advocacy right away
I completely agree with this. (Most) People from the US tend to ignore the developments outside their country. One extra data on cultural colonialism: why do Americans call themselves Americans? Haven't they ever realised there are several more countries in America apart from the US?
The journalist completely missed the point. There are already lots of other curves that you can use to fit 'non-normal' data (e.g. Weibull, Gamma, etc) that could be more appropriate than a normal curve. The link with chaos theory and the new distribution is interesting though.