Varieties of scientific experience
« previous post | next post »
This recent SMBC has a slightly odd idea of how today's (prospective) great scientists spend their time:
Certainly not an instance of the Fourth Paradigm, or even the third, or for that matter a stereotypical representation of the first or the second.
But the second panel is timeless:
Theo Vosse said,
April 21, 2010 @ 12:46 pm
In all honesty, it says "how to become", which still requires study. In most disciplines, anyway. But the second panel indeed touches an uncomfortable truth.
[(myl) But the kind of studying that involves reading a lot of books is unlikely to make someone a "great" scientist, or even a competent one: observing and modeling patterns in nature is the key activity.]
Pekka K. said,
April 21, 2010 @ 12:49 pm
There is an additional hidden panel to every SMBC strip that is displayed when you move your mouse pointer over the red button just below the strip itself. It's not reproduced here, but perhaps it need not be; interested parties can visit the SMBC site and see it for themselves.
Ken Grabach said,
April 21, 2010 @ 1:12 pm
I note the commentary and distinctions to be made between diligent study and research, and publishing (with or without diligent study and research to back it up).
Sili said,
April 21, 2010 @ 3:19 pm
*coughcough*Brizendine*coughcough*Greenfield*coughcough*
Acilius said,
April 21, 2010 @ 5:52 pm
@Pekka K #2: I've been reading SMBC for years now, and I never thought to click on the red dot. Thank you!
@Mark #1: I suspect the phrase "reading a lot of books" means something different to you than it does to most people. Would it really surprise you if data showed that the average scientist reads a lot more books than does the average person, and that most great scientists read more books than do most great headwaiters?
[(myl) No, though I suspect it varies a lot, and I don't like to assume that stereotypes are generally valid. Also, many excellent scientists that I know are also enthusiastic amateur musicians, but I would be even more surprised to see a comic depicting the stereotypical activity of a hard-working scientist as practicing the piano.]
If I were a snarky sort of person, I would go on to ask what sort of linguist draws a contrast between "nature" and "books," as though written language were not a part of nature. I won't do that, not only because I'm not that obnoxious (I'm pretty obnoxious, just not that obnoxious,) but also because I know that in this case the answer would be "an outstanding linguist." But maybe it would be fair to say, "an outstanding linguist who was tired and in a hurry."
[(myl) But it's been 50 years since linguists who wanted to observe patterns in written language — and more and more of us do — turned to books in digital rather than paper form.]
Zach said,
April 21, 2010 @ 6:35 pm
Heya! I'm the guy who drew the comic.
By showing a guy reading books and papers, I was trying more to imply "working hard mentally" than that any particular activity makes a great scientist. Perhaps it would have been better to simply show a person sitting and thinking. But, it's too late to change now!
[(myl) It's a great comic — this particular one, and SMBC in general, which I read regularly! And I get that the first guy is engaging in stereotypical "hard intellectual work", i.e. "hitting the books". But my first reaction was that these days, a researcher sweating over a pile of books is sort of like a farmer with a horse-drawn plow.
Anyhow, thanks for years of enjoyment!]
Acilius said,
April 21, 2010 @ 9:44 pm
One of the great things about blogging is that a person can go out on a limb in a way that you don't often see in edited works. So you have more people to bounce ideas off than you would otherwise.
That's why I hesitate to belabor this point. It's also why I can't resist doing it. While there might be less paper-and-ink around universities and labs today than you would have found there in earlier decades, it would take a lot of data to convince me that professional scientists do not in fact spend more time in the course of their work reading printed matter than does the average citizen.
Nic said,
April 22, 2010 @ 6:47 am
Oh lord, I spend SO MUCH of my research time reading (mostly journals, obviously). But then, I'm probably at best a merely adequate scientist :P
[(myl) In actual printed and bound journals? What field is this? (I know there are some where these habits persist.) In most of the subfields that I work in, if you ask someone when they last read something in a printed and bound journal, as opposed to an online preprint or reprint, or perhaps a paper copy run off from a .pdf, they need to stop and think, and often can't remember, except that it was many years ago.]
Mark P said,
April 22, 2010 @ 7:08 am
it would take a lot of data to convince me that professional scientists do not in fact spend more time in the course of their work reading printed matter than does the average citizen.
Even if they did, do you really think that differentiates the great ones from the good ones?
I would have said it was the exact opposite. The great ones need to go on beyond what has been written.
How much reading do you reckon Einstein, Dirac, Fermi etc did before their best work?
möngke said,
April 22, 2010 @ 8:01 am
I take the comic to imply simply that becoming a good scientist requires a lot of work, whereas becoming wealthy doesn't, necessarily. Which is true. Fortunately (heh) for some, not so much for others.
Also, at least in sociocultural anthropology, quite a lot of professional knowledge is still drawn from printed books (the offices of my lecturers have some of the longest bookshelves I've ever seen). Of course, you could argue that anthropology is not a 'proper' science, but that's probably missing the point =)
Acilius said,
April 22, 2010 @ 8:20 am
@Zach: "Perhaps it would have been better to simply show a person sitting and thinking"- If you could have made that work, you'd meet anyone's definition of a great cartoonist.
I'm trying to think like a cartoonist for a second, maybe you can help me figure out whether I'm succeeding. Draw a picture of someone looking at a computer screen, put it in a web comic so that the audience consists of people looking at computer screens. Surely they are going to look at that picture and think, Here's someone doing what I'm doing. When they read the caption "How to become a great scientist," they're going to think, What, reading comics is going to make me a great scientist? So that isn't going to set up your joke.
Or, draw a picture of a wildlife biologist out in the field observing animals. They're going to look at that and think it looks like fun, like more fun than reading comics. So when they see the caption "How to become a great scientist," they'll be less likely to think "He means, by doing hard work," than "He means, science is fun." Which it is, but that doesn't make the point.
Or, you draw someone in a lab coat pouring liquids from one test tube to another. If your audience expects you to be be hip, ironic, knowing, they'll think, He's satirizing all those comics from decades past in which scientific research was represented in this stereotypical way. If someone new sees the strip, they'll think, This guy's a hack for whom Sydney Harris lived in vain. In neither case will it turn your readers in the direction they have to look to see the punchline.
So, you draw a guy laboring over some vast and dusty tomes. Thus you make the point that to become a great scientist you have to be willing to go wherever you have to go to get the information you need, even into the dread precincts of the library.
Acilius said,
April 22, 2010 @ 8:29 am
@Zach: I'm trying to think like a cartoonist, maybe you can tell me whether I'm suceeding.
You draw a picture of someone looking at a computer screen. You put it in a web comic, so your audience is people looking at computer screens. Surely they're going to think, This person is doing what I'm doing. They read the caption, "How to become a great scientist." They think, What, reading comics is going to make me a great scientist? So that's out.
You draw a picture of someone doing the sort of work that attracts people to science, let's say a wildlife biologist observing animals in the field. Again, you figure that the audience is less likely to think "He means, science is hard work," than, "He means, science is fun." Which it is, but that doesn't set up your joke.
You draw a picture of someone in a lab coat pouring a liquid from one test tube to another. An audience familiar with your hip, knowing, ironic strip will think, He's making fun of all those decades of comics that depict scientific research in this stereotypical way. A reader coming on the strip for the first time will think, He's a hack for whom Sydney Harris lived in vain. In neither case is it usable.
So, you draw someone laboring over vast and disused tomes. That will get the point across that to become a great scientist you have to be prepared to go wherever you have to go to find the information you need, even venturing into that dread precinct known as the library.
Acilius said,
April 22, 2010 @ 8:30 am
@Zach: I'm trying to think like a cartoonist for a second, maybe you can help me figure out whether I'm succeeding. Draw a picture of someone looking at a computer screen, put it in a web comic so that the audience consists of people looking at computer screens. Surely they are going to look at that picture and think, Here's someone doing what I'm doing. When they read the caption "How to become a great scientist," they're going to think, What, reading comics is going to make me a great scientist? So that isn't going to set up your joke.
Or, draw a picture of a wildlife biologist out in the field observing animals. They're going to look at that and think it looks like fun, like more fun than reading comics. So when they see the caption "How to become a great scientist," they'll be less likely to think "He means, by doing hard work," than "He means, science is fun." Which it is, but that doesn't make the point.
Or, you draw someone in a lab coat pouring liquids from one test tube to another. If your audience expects you to be be hip, ironic, knowing, they'll think, He's satirizing all those comics from decades past in which scientific research was represented in this stereotypical way. If someone new sees the strip, they'll think, This guy's a hack for whom Sydney Harris lived in vain. In neither case will it turn your readers in the direction they have to look to see the punchline.
So, you draw a guy laboring over some vast and dusty tomes. Thus you make the point that to become a great scientist you have to be willing to go wherever you have to go to get the information you need, even into the dread precincts of the library.
Nic said,
April 22, 2010 @ 9:45 am
@Liberman In actual printed and bound journals?
Ah, good point. I didn't realise you were making a distinction between reading printed material in its originally published form and reading off the monitor / printed copies.
uberVU - social comments said,
April 23, 2010 @ 12:01 am
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by PhilosophyFeeds: Language Log: Varieties of scientific experience http://goo.gl/fb/9nKDM…
Jon said,
April 24, 2010 @ 3:52 pm
I'm a mathematician (am I even really a scientist?) and I use books a lot. However, this may have a lot to do with my own personal preference. I have a sort of obsession with printed material.