any self-taught scientists?
any self-taught scientists?
Have any Bogleheads ever taught themselves a science, e.g., biology or chemistry? Not just read a textbook or two, but accumulated a body of knowledge that a college major has? I would be very appreciative of hearing from any who had. It seems a daunting task with no tutor to show the way on really difficult matters.
I am too old to go back to school (and have too much debt) but I would like to learn some science just for the heck of it. I was always interested in it in high school, but drifted it away from it over time.
I am too old to go back to school (and have too much debt) but I would like to learn some science just for the heck of it. I was always interested in it in high school, but drifted it away from it over time.
- 3CT_Paddler
- Posts: 3485
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:28 pm
- Location: Marietta, GA
I would pm InterplanetJanet...
Last edited by 3CT_Paddler on Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
- zzcooper123
- Posts: 539
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:55 pm
I understand that MIT offers free course materials, including video lectures from their excellent professors, at their web site http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm and http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/ocw-scholar/
When I was an undergraduate almost 40 years ago, the Calculus textbook used in almost every high school and college was written by MIT professor Thomas. Freshman year at MIT, all Calculus lectures were personally delivered by Thomas. Don't know if they're available at the MIT web site these days (Calculus hasn't changed much, after all).
Also, my Physics professor had work at Los Alamos and was a regular contributor to Scientific American. He was also an excellent lecturer.
The online course materials are free, but if you want to actually earn a diploma from MIT I'm afraid you'll need to pay quite a bit of tuition. Of course, if you've already "passed" the online courses, the real life classes and exams should be a snap.
When I was an undergraduate almost 40 years ago, the Calculus textbook used in almost every high school and college was written by MIT professor Thomas. Freshman year at MIT, all Calculus lectures were personally delivered by Thomas. Don't know if they're available at the MIT web site these days (Calculus hasn't changed much, after all).
Also, my Physics professor had work at Los Alamos and was a regular contributor to Scientific American. He was also an excellent lecturer.
The online course materials are free, but if you want to actually earn a diploma from MIT I'm afraid you'll need to pay quite a bit of tuition. Of course, if you've already "passed" the online courses, the real life classes and exams should be a snap.
Last edited by djw on Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Love many, trust few, and always paddle your own canoe
I don't think I would wish a chemistry or biochemistry textbook on anyone. However, you might try to read/watch popular accounts of scientific endeavors. Some examples might be watching NOVA on PBS and reading things by Carl Sagan or Natalie Angier.
"The Eighth Day of Creation" by Judson may also be worth a read although I could not get through it.
But to answer your question, most PhDs are probably self-taught after the basics: One must do all the reading all the time to stay abreast of current science. In a sense, all scientists are self-taught.
"The Eighth Day of Creation" by Judson may also be worth a read although I could not get through it.
But to answer your question, most PhDs are probably self-taught after the basics: One must do all the reading all the time to stay abreast of current science. In a sense, all scientists are self-taught.
Many community colleges offer science classes, both days and evenings, at a reasonable price. In some places, these classes are very low cost or FREE to senior citizens, usually on a space-available basis. It doesn't cost much to call your local community college admissions office and ask. Since fall classes are just starting, tomorrow would be an excellent time to make the call.
Love many, trust few, and always paddle your own canoe
See IRS publication #970 "Tax Benefits for Education"
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p970.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p970.pdf
Love many, trust few, and always paddle your own canoe
In an aside, this will be either absolutely awesome, or awful:livesoft wrote:... examples might be watching NOVA on PBS and reading things by Carl Sagan or Natalie Angier.
http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-ceter ... e-2011088/
Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” getting reboot by Fox and Family Guy’s Seth MacFarlane
Re: any self-taught scientists?
A college major can be pretty broad, especially for biology. In a sense, you could probably get a master's degree worth of knowledge in something like virology quicker than you could get a bachelor's amount of information in "biology".newbie001 wrote:Not just read a textbook or two, but accumulated a body of knowledge that a college major has?
The former isn't a bad goal, although I'd probably select chemistry or physics over biology because there's more of a build.
That's what your local public library is for.There's books,dvds etc on just about any subject you can think of. A lot of my homeschool patrons take out the Bill Nye dvd series for science instruction.I am too old to go back to school (and have too much debt) but I would like to learn some science just for the heck of it. I was always interested in it in high school, but drifted it away from it over time.
All the Best, |
Joe
There are a host of top colleges offering free courses. MIT has already been mentioned. Ive been trying to teach myself security valuations in order to attempt stock picking... its one hell of a task. Half of it is the difficulty of the subject... the other half is the lack of an organized learning environment with other people to talk to.
Heres the free course catalogue: http://www.openculture.com/freeonlinecourses
Heres the free course catalogue: http://www.openculture.com/freeonlinecourses
- interplanetjanet
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:52 pm
- Location: the wilds of central California
I. Loved. That. Book.livesoft wrote:"The Eighth Day of Creation" by Judson may also be worth a read although I could not get through it.
I've a copy sitting a few feet from me now, I think this is a sign that it needs rereading. It is truly a scientific epic - filled with wrong turns, joy, heartbreak, ego, and Linus Pauling kicking ass. What's not to like?
This is very, very true.But to answer your question, most PhDs are probably self-taught after the basics: One must do all the reading all the time to stay abreast of current science. In a sense, all scientists are self-taught.
I taught myself what would probably be considered an advanced knowledge of information retrieval and semantic analysis over the space of a few years - it helped a lot that applying it to the web as a whole was still a very new and unusual thing, so even my initial fumblings were productive. Whatever you try to learn, start finding applications for your knowledge as soon as you can - it will make it much easier to stay motivated and excited about a subject.
-janet
- TrustNoOne
- Posts: 787
- Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:09 am
I studied Astronomy a lot mostly on my own from grade school on. Was going to major in it, but changed to Physics. There is a very long tradition in Astronomy of amatuers making discoveries of comets, minor planets and the like. They used to also do a lot of variable star observations, thouigh that may no longer be necessary.
I took one astronomy class in college. I've never found a more fascinating subject. But it's tough to make a career out of itTrustNoOne wrote:I studied Astronomy a lot mostly on my own from grade school on. Was going to major in it, but changed to Physics. There is a very long tradition in Astronomy of amatuers making discoveries of comets, minor planets and the like. They used to also do a lot of variable star observations, thouigh that may no longer be necessary.
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/ is top-notch.
livesoft wrote:
Quote:
But to answer your question, most PhDs are probably self-taught after the basics: One must do all the reading all the time to stay abreast of current science. In a sense, all scientists are self-taught.
janet wrote: This is very, very true.
This is very, very UNtrue.
Most phds are taught by a mentor over a period of years to learn and effectively execute "the scientific method" -- read and understand the background material, ask an important and novel question, formulate an original hypothesis, design appropriate experiments to test the hypothesis, perform the experiments, analyze the data, interpret the data, and, based on the results, either repeat the experiments to confirm the hypothesis, or, reformulate the hypothesis and repeat.
so, doing "all the reading all the time..." is a necessary but small part of executing the scientific method. i seriously doubt that many people could do the rest of the above on their own. so, the statement that "all scientists are self taught" is completely false.
that being established, i would also point out that in addition to teaching the scientific mehtod to phd students, the mentor typically teaches them how to critically read the literature, how to write papers for publication, how to give effective presentations at research meetings... and much more.
Quote:
But to answer your question, most PhDs are probably self-taught after the basics: One must do all the reading all the time to stay abreast of current science. In a sense, all scientists are self-taught.
janet wrote: This is very, very true.
This is very, very UNtrue.
Most phds are taught by a mentor over a period of years to learn and effectively execute "the scientific method" -- read and understand the background material, ask an important and novel question, formulate an original hypothesis, design appropriate experiments to test the hypothesis, perform the experiments, analyze the data, interpret the data, and, based on the results, either repeat the experiments to confirm the hypothesis, or, reformulate the hypothesis and repeat.
so, doing "all the reading all the time..." is a necessary but small part of executing the scientific method. i seriously doubt that many people could do the rest of the above on their own. so, the statement that "all scientists are self taught" is completely false.
that being established, i would also point out that in addition to teaching the scientific mehtod to phd students, the mentor typically teaches them how to critically read the literature, how to write papers for publication, how to give effective presentations at research meetings... and much more.
Last edited by greenspam on Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
as always, |
peace, |
greenie.
Interesting and exciting news. The original Cosmos was great, and I think Neil DeGrasse-Tyson will perform admirably. It doesn't appear that MacFarlane will has any influence on the show, but did manage to pull a lot of strings to make it happen and to get Fox behind it. Anything that gets real science in to the mainstream is probably a good thing.marbleous wrote:In an aside, this will be either absolutely awesome, or awful:livesoft wrote:... examples might be watching NOVA on PBS and reading things by Carl Sagan or Natalie Angier.
http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-ceter ... e-2011088/
Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” getting reboot by Fox and Family Guy’s Seth MacFarlane
Ryan
An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered; an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered. -- GK Chesterton
-
- Posts: 2661
- Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:25 am
- Location: Washington
Actually, as a graduate student who will be getting my PhD in the next 6 months, I completely agree with livesoft. At some point, everything you learn is up to the student. They must decide what sources of information they want to spend their time with and how much time and hassle they want to spend doing it. While advisors certainly do help with navigating the new world of conference talks, journal publications, and applying for jobs, the scientific method, and how to execute it, is actually very natural and obvious to many people since there is no other way of obtaining knowledge about the world. My advisor certainly shares his perspective and ideas with me on my projects, but in much the same way that fellow graduate students discuss my work with me. My advisor understands the science behind what I'm doing in an very intuitive way, but since it's a computational field in which he hasn't really done his own grunt work in many decades, he actually doesn't even know exactly how to do what I do. So in order for me to learn how do it I need to self-study and ask around with other students and postdocs for that knowledge.greenspam wrote:livesoft wrote:
Quote:
But to answer your question, most PhDs are probably self-taught after the basics: One must do all the reading all the time to stay abreast of current science. In a sense, all scientists are self-taught.
janet wrote: This is very, very true.
This is very, very UNtrue.
Most phds are taught by a mentor over a period of years to learn and effectively execute "the scientific method" -- read and understand the background material, ask an important and novel question, formulate an original hypothesis, design appropriate experiments to test the hypothesis, perform the experiments, analyze the data, interpret the data, and, based on the results, either repeat the experiments to confirm the hypothesis, or, reformulate the hypothesis and repeat.
so, doing "all the reading all the time..." is a necessary but small part of executing the scientific method. i seriously doubt that many people could do the rest of the above on their own. so, the statement that "all scientists are self taught" is completely false.
that being established, i would also point out that in addition to teaching the scientific mehtod to phd students, the mentor typically teaches them how to critically read the literature, how to write papers for publication, how to give effective presentations at research meetings... and much more.
And about the reading, the advisor can't really just teach you to read papers. You have to have the drive yourself to print off a new paper and sit down and read it. And if you want to be a well-rounded scientist with a global perspective on the field, you have to routinely print off papers that are NOT related to your current projects. Someone can tell you this is important, but until it really "clicks" in your own mind it's fairly impossible to do.
Back to the OPs original question. I think it's completely possible to teach oneself science if you are extremely motivated and have the time. A working understanding of science is difficult though because you will probably lack the motivation to learn the basics (which can sometimes be mundane and not feel pertinent) without the formal homeworks and testing that normal students go through. But I think a qualitative/semi-quantitative understanding can be obtained from self-study with reasonable effort, if you chose it to be a hobby and personal interest. The longer it's your hobby and personal interest, the more you'll know. And the world is certainly much better with citizens who can somewhat understand why scientists are interested in certain topics and why they might be important and exciting.
-
- Posts: 161
- Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:29 pm
It would be worthwhile and fun to watch the feynman lectures. He was one of the great Physics minds of the day and had a philosophy that physics should be simple enough to teach that anyone can learn it.
His lectures are online here:
http://research.microsoft.com/tuva
His lectures are online here:
http://research.microsoft.com/tuva
GammaPoint wrote:Actually, as a graduate student who will be getting my PhD in the next 6 months, I completely agree with livesoft. At some point, everything you learn is up to the student. They must decide what sources of information they want to spend their time with and how much time and hassle they want to spend doing it. While advisors certainly do help with navigating the new world of conference talks, journal publications, and applying for jobs, the scientific method, and how to execute it, is actually very natural and obvious to many people since there is no other way of obtaining knowledge about the world. My advisor certainly shares his perspective and ideas with me on my projects, but in much the same way that fellow graduate students discuss my work with me. My advisor understands the science behind what I'm doing in an very intuitive way, but since it's a computational field in which he hasn't really done his own grunt work in many decades, he actually doesn't even know exactly how to do what I do. So in order for me to learn how do it I need to self-study and ask around with other students and postdocs for that knowledge.greenspam wrote:livesoft wrote:
Quote:
But to answer your question, most PhDs are probably self-taught after the basics: One must do all the reading all the time to stay abreast of current science. In a sense, all scientists are self-taught.
janet wrote: This is very, very true.
This is very, very UNtrue.
Most phds are taught by a mentor over a period of years to learn and effectively execute "the scientific method" -- read and understand the background material, ask an important and novel question, formulate an original hypothesis, design appropriate experiments to test the hypothesis, perform the experiments, analyze the data, interpret the data, and, based on the results, either repeat the experiments to confirm the hypothesis, or, reformulate the hypothesis and repeat.
so, doing "all the reading all the time..." is a necessary but small part of executing the scientific method. i seriously doubt that many people could do the rest of the above on their own. so, the statement that "all scientists are self taught" is completely false.
that being established, i would also point out that in addition to teaching the scientific mehtod to phd students, the mentor typically teaches them how to critically read the literature, how to write papers for publication, how to give effective presentations at research meetings... and much more.
And about the reading, the advisor can't really just teach you to read papers. You have to have the drive yourself to print off a new paper and sit down and read it. And if you want to be a well-rounded scientist with a global perspective on the field, you have to routinely print off papers that are NOT related to your current projects. Someone can tell you this is important, but until it really "clicks" in your own mind it's fairly impossible to do.
Back to the OPs original question. I think it's completely possible to teach oneself science if you are extremely motivated and have the time. A working understanding of science is difficult though because you will probably lack the motivation to learn the basics (which can sometimes be mundane and not feel pertinent) without the formal homeworks and testing that normal students go through. But I think a qualitative/semi-quantitative understanding can be obtained from self-study with reasonable effort, if you chose it to be a hobby and personal interest. The longer it's your hobby and personal interest, the more you'll know. And the world is certainly much better with citizens who can somewhat understand why scientists are interested in certain topics and why they might be important and exciting.
it is unfortunate you do not have a good mentor and/or you are in a field that does not require one... as a phd, and a mentor for about 20 phd students over the past 25 years, i can assure you that your views are the exception, not the norm.
as always, |
peace, |
greenie.
-
- Posts: 2661
- Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:25 am
- Location: Washington
Because I disagree with you you find it necessary to claim that I may not have a good mentor? My advisor is actually one of the most highly cited researchers in all of the physical sciences and is world-known for revolutionizing the entire field (and those fields associated with it). I can assure you he's a fantastic mentor and that I'm wildly lucky to be his student. Perhaps some students just need less hand holding?greenspam wrote:
it is unfortunate you do not have a good mentor and/or you are in a field that does not require one... as a phd, and a mentor for about 20 phd students over the past 25 years, i can assure you that your views are the exception, not the norm.
As I said, mentors in science have an important part to play in developing new scientists. But in my experience (and for that of my wife, who is in life sciences) the mentor is not the one who teaches the student how to think and how to follow the scientific method, nor are they the one who is responsible for teaching them their field. Imho, if you get to graduate school and you still don't know the difference between having support for an idea or not, you shouldn't be in science.
I believe good mentors will teach you how to think for yourself and to learn for yourself. Also good mentors smooth the path and remove obstacles that get in the way of their students. Good mentors do not become obstacles themselves.
I am sure greenie did not mean that s/he spoon feeds knowledge to the 20 grad students they have had. And if s/he ranked those 20 grad students, I would guess that the most highly ranked ones learned the most on their own.
I am sure greenie did not mean that s/he spoon feeds knowledge to the 20 grad students they have had. And if s/he ranked those 20 grad students, I would guess that the most highly ranked ones learned the most on their own.
Many people that are on a par with college trained "Computer Scientists" are self thought and both at the hobby and professional level.
If you are flexible as to the field then there may be other areas that might be more rewarding because of the inherent limitations and the other fields don't require specialized laboratory equipment to do hands on work.
Here are some examples of things that people do are but many of these are more like an amature engineer than a scientist.
Astronomers: Telescopes as previously mentioned.
Aerospace engineering: Model rocks and airplanes. Some of the people are real serious and do amazing things. This would require a lot of the chemistry and physics that you are interested in.
Mechanical engineering: Lot of tinkerers, and inventors out there not to mention the car buffs. Also radio controlled cars, boats, etc.
Biology: Many environmental advocates are self taught and some of them are real knowledgeable about their area of expertise. Expert gardeners and pet breeders can also be real knowledgeable too.
Electrical engineering: Ham radio operators.
Chemistry: Advanced non-digital photography requires a lot of chemistry in the lab. I would think you could buy the used photo lab equipment fairly inexpensively now and this is still used for some high end work.
Geology: There are lots of "rock hounds" who have learned a lot of Geology and have gone well beyone basic rock collecting.
If you are flexible as to the field then there may be other areas that might be more rewarding because of the inherent limitations and the other fields don't require specialized laboratory equipment to do hands on work.
Here are some examples of things that people do are but many of these are more like an amature engineer than a scientist.
Astronomers: Telescopes as previously mentioned.
Aerospace engineering: Model rocks and airplanes. Some of the people are real serious and do amazing things. This would require a lot of the chemistry and physics that you are interested in.
Mechanical engineering: Lot of tinkerers, and inventors out there not to mention the car buffs. Also radio controlled cars, boats, etc.
Biology: Many environmental advocates are self taught and some of them are real knowledgeable about their area of expertise. Expert gardeners and pet breeders can also be real knowledgeable too.
Electrical engineering: Ham radio operators.
Chemistry: Advanced non-digital photography requires a lot of chemistry in the lab. I would think you could buy the used photo lab equipment fairly inexpensively now and this is still used for some high end work.
Geology: There are lots of "rock hounds" who have learned a lot of Geology and have gone well beyone basic rock collecting.
- Opponent Process
- Posts: 5157
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:19 pm
sort of the mystery of that PhD is that, yes, at some point, you are suddenly a resourceful independent thinker capable of original thought. the world opens up, and it's then an intense mystery why everyone can't just do things for themselves, like google something (to use a very mundane but very real example). crossing that threshold can take some mentor pushing and student pulling and lifting, but being entirely self-reliant intellectually is an incredibly beautiful thing, and I wish everyone could experience it. I don't think a PhD is absolutely necessary, though.livesoft wrote:I believe good mentors will teach you how to think for yourself and to learn for yourself.
30/30/20/20 |
US/International/Bonds/TIPS |
Average Age=37
I have a PhD (physics), but now work in two fields (chemistry and molecular/cell biology) in which I have little formal training. For that matter, I've never took a course in finance, either, and only one course in economics.
A PhD is a credential, but it can't provide you with what is most important in science, which is a great curiosity about how things work, tempered with scepticism of taking information at face value, without looking at it critically and considering other interpretations for what is observed.
I think that some people can teach themselves science, although probably it requires the right mindset of curiosity and self-discipline. What I have found when I delve into new fields is that occasionally having a real person there on occasion to answer questions and put things in context is extremely useful. In graduate school, that is the role generally played by your research advisor.
Also it's helpful to have some base of knowledge from which to extend. I've been lucky in that physics, while not a very practical field in itself, emphasizes a lot of fundamental principles that apply to other fields. The references earlier in the thread to the Feynman Lectures is a good example of this (Richard Feynman had a cult hero status to a couple generations of students in physics and related fields, and IMO, for good reason).
Bottom line: yes, you can learn science by yourself, but it's extremely useful if you can find other people to interact with. Fortunately, scientists love talking about their work to anyone who will listen!
Best wishes,
Brad
A PhD is a credential, but it can't provide you with what is most important in science, which is a great curiosity about how things work, tempered with scepticism of taking information at face value, without looking at it critically and considering other interpretations for what is observed.
I think that some people can teach themselves science, although probably it requires the right mindset of curiosity and self-discipline. What I have found when I delve into new fields is that occasionally having a real person there on occasion to answer questions and put things in context is extremely useful. In graduate school, that is the role generally played by your research advisor.
Also it's helpful to have some base of knowledge from which to extend. I've been lucky in that physics, while not a very practical field in itself, emphasizes a lot of fundamental principles that apply to other fields. The references earlier in the thread to the Feynman Lectures is a good example of this (Richard Feynman had a cult hero status to a couple generations of students in physics and related fields, and IMO, for good reason).
Bottom line: yes, you can learn science by yourself, but it's extremely useful if you can find other people to interact with. Fortunately, scientists love talking about their work to anyone who will listen!
Best wishes,
Brad
Most of my posts assume no behavioral errors.
Just as there are many different ways in which one can become an expert at cooking (e.g., gourmet meals, healthy meals on a budget, using local ingredients), there are multiple ways to define an expert scientist. If you're goal is to become generally knowledgeable or to become technically competent (e.g., solve problems in undergrad or graduate textbook), then it's relatively easy to teach yourself. Of course, it's easy with a mentor, but these days there are so many resources available on the internet, it's definitely possible.
However, conducting original and important scientific research is a whole different level. I'd be surprised if people who have devoted their professional lives to achieving that level of expertise can effectively communicate how others can do it via a textbook or youtube. And while I don't want to say it's impossible, I'd say that the odd of teaching yourself to do top-notch scientific research are lower than winning the lottery.
The best way to learn is by participating in scientific research. At first students start working on a small and well-defined part of an existing project. At first most need micromanagement to ensure quality and sound practices. Then, they take on responsibility for their part of the project and presenting their results without being micromanaged. Then they try to figure out what they should do next with in a project or perhaps within a research group. Frankly, most students struggle with this step and tend to try to suggest doing more of the same, slightly improving things. There's a time and place for that, but just because a line of research was worth a semester or few years of a graduate student's effort doesn't mean it is worth devoting a career to. Students need to become familiar enough with neighboring fields that they can recognize connections, opportunities and dead ends. In my experience, most astronomy/physics Ph.D. are roughly at this point when they graduate. They're generally knowledgeable and competent in a broad field and have highly developed skills specific to their dissertation area. Many have a reasonable familiarity with neighboring fields and the ability to identify next steps reasonably well. However, most are still a novice at initiating new directions of research, identifying problems worthy of significant effort/resources and making that happen.
In many fields (e.g., physics, astronomy) a Ph.D. is only a small step along the way to becoming an independent researcher. The next step (often called a postdoc or fellowship) gives the individual more freedom and responsibility, but wise students recognize that they would still benefit from an effective adviser providing feedback. They don't need someone checking their computer code, but rather helping them decide which questions and lines of research are most worthy of their time, which directions are likely to pay off given the time and resources that the junior researcher has available.
And even people who are great researchers and scientists still have lots to learn about communicating results, writing proposals to obtain need resources, managing people, managing a lab budget, being an effective mentor, working in a larger team, dealing with the politics of a university/government agency. Some of those have similarities to non-scientific fields, but there are nuances that are different and most scientists receive little formal training. A good mentor can help with several of those, but ultimately, most scientists in my field learn lots, both science and these soft skills, by doing things and striving to do better next time.
And that's why it's so valuable to have a scientist who is great at many aspects of the scientific enterprise as your mentor. To a promising recent Ph.D., one good lunch conversation with a great mentor can make the difference between a three-year postdoc being the launching pad to a successful scientific career with real impact for society and three years of incremental research that leads to the person dropping out of the field.
I know many great researchers who are poor communicators or ineffective mentors. And I know several scientists who are great at communicating their results, but are still obsessed with one or two lines of research, despite the diminishing returns of their research. The fraction of people who excel at all of the above is shockingly small. Nevertheless, it's very hard to predict who will fill those exclusive shoes. At least in my field, most any large public research university has a department with some faculty who make excellent mentors. If you can find one of them who is willing to take you on as an unpaid intern, you'd be lucky. If you prove yourself, you can earn a recommendation that can get you into a Ph.D. program or maybe a job as something like a lab tech at a private company. Whether you're willing to devote lots of study, work and long hours to get there is up to you.
However, conducting original and important scientific research is a whole different level. I'd be surprised if people who have devoted their professional lives to achieving that level of expertise can effectively communicate how others can do it via a textbook or youtube. And while I don't want to say it's impossible, I'd say that the odd of teaching yourself to do top-notch scientific research are lower than winning the lottery.
The best way to learn is by participating in scientific research. At first students start working on a small and well-defined part of an existing project. At first most need micromanagement to ensure quality and sound practices. Then, they take on responsibility for their part of the project and presenting their results without being micromanaged. Then they try to figure out what they should do next with in a project or perhaps within a research group. Frankly, most students struggle with this step and tend to try to suggest doing more of the same, slightly improving things. There's a time and place for that, but just because a line of research was worth a semester or few years of a graduate student's effort doesn't mean it is worth devoting a career to. Students need to become familiar enough with neighboring fields that they can recognize connections, opportunities and dead ends. In my experience, most astronomy/physics Ph.D. are roughly at this point when they graduate. They're generally knowledgeable and competent in a broad field and have highly developed skills specific to their dissertation area. Many have a reasonable familiarity with neighboring fields and the ability to identify next steps reasonably well. However, most are still a novice at initiating new directions of research, identifying problems worthy of significant effort/resources and making that happen.
In many fields (e.g., physics, astronomy) a Ph.D. is only a small step along the way to becoming an independent researcher. The next step (often called a postdoc or fellowship) gives the individual more freedom and responsibility, but wise students recognize that they would still benefit from an effective adviser providing feedback. They don't need someone checking their computer code, but rather helping them decide which questions and lines of research are most worthy of their time, which directions are likely to pay off given the time and resources that the junior researcher has available.
And even people who are great researchers and scientists still have lots to learn about communicating results, writing proposals to obtain need resources, managing people, managing a lab budget, being an effective mentor, working in a larger team, dealing with the politics of a university/government agency. Some of those have similarities to non-scientific fields, but there are nuances that are different and most scientists receive little formal training. A good mentor can help with several of those, but ultimately, most scientists in my field learn lots, both science and these soft skills, by doing things and striving to do better next time.
And that's why it's so valuable to have a scientist who is great at many aspects of the scientific enterprise as your mentor. To a promising recent Ph.D., one good lunch conversation with a great mentor can make the difference between a three-year postdoc being the launching pad to a successful scientific career with real impact for society and three years of incremental research that leads to the person dropping out of the field.
I know many great researchers who are poor communicators or ineffective mentors. And I know several scientists who are great at communicating their results, but are still obsessed with one or two lines of research, despite the diminishing returns of their research. The fraction of people who excel at all of the above is shockingly small. Nevertheless, it's very hard to predict who will fill those exclusive shoes. At least in my field, most any large public research university has a department with some faculty who make excellent mentors. If you can find one of them who is willing to take you on as an unpaid intern, you'd be lucky. If you prove yourself, you can earn a recommendation that can get you into a Ph.D. program or maybe a job as something like a lab tech at a private company. Whether you're willing to devote lots of study, work and long hours to get there is up to you.
My Ph.D. advisor was less than useless. She was a detriment to my education.greenspam wrote:GammaPoint wrote:Actually, as a graduate student who will be getting my PhD in the next 6 months, I completely agree with livesoft. At some point, everything you learn is up to the student. They must decide what sources of information they want to spend their time with and how much time and hassle they want to spend doing it. While advisors certainly do help with navigating the new world of conference talks, journal publications, and applying for jobs, the scientific method, and how to execute it, is actually very natural and obvious to many people since there is no other way of obtaining knowledge about the world. My advisor certainly shares his perspective and ideas with me on my projects, but in much the same way that fellow graduate students discuss my work with me. My advisor understands the science behind what I'm doing in an very intuitive way, but since it's a computational field in which he hasn't really done his own grunt work in many decades, he actually doesn't even know exactly how to do what I do. So in order for me to learn how do it I need to self-study and ask around with other students and postdocs for that knowledge.greenspam wrote:livesoft wrote:
Quote:
But to answer your question, most PhDs are probably self-taught after the basics: One must do all the reading all the time to stay abreast of current science. In a sense, all scientists are self-taught.
janet wrote: This is very, very true.
This is very, very UNtrue.
Most phds are taught by a mentor over a period of years to learn and effectively execute "the scientific method" -- read and understand the background material, ask an important and novel question, formulate an original hypothesis, design appropriate experiments to test the hypothesis, perform the experiments, analyze the data, interpret the data, and, based on the results, either repeat the experiments to confirm the hypothesis, or, reformulate the hypothesis and repeat.
so, doing "all the reading all the time..." is a necessary but small part of executing the scientific method. i seriously doubt that many people could do the rest of the above on their own. so, the statement that "all scientists are self taught" is completely false.
that being established, i would also point out that in addition to teaching the scientific mehtod to phd students, the mentor typically teaches them how to critically read the literature, how to write papers for publication, how to give effective presentations at research meetings... and much more.
And about the reading, the advisor can't really just teach you to read papers. You have to have the drive yourself to print off a new paper and sit down and read it. And if you want to be a well-rounded scientist with a global perspective on the field, you have to routinely print off papers that are NOT related to your current projects. Someone can tell you this is important, but until it really "clicks" in your own mind it's fairly impossible to do.
Back to the OPs original question. I think it's completely possible to teach oneself science if you are extremely motivated and have the time. A working understanding of science is difficult though because you will probably lack the motivation to learn the basics (which can sometimes be mundane and not feel pertinent) without the formal homeworks and testing that normal students go through. But I think a qualitative/semi-quantitative understanding can be obtained from self-study with reasonable effort, if you chose it to be a hobby and personal interest. The longer it's your hobby and personal interest, the more you'll know. And the world is certainly much better with citizens who can somewhat understand why scientists are interested in certain topics and why they might be important and exciting.
it is unfortunate you do not have a good mentor and/or you are in a field that does not require one... as a phd, and a mentor for about 20 phd students over the past 25 years, i can assure you that your views are the exception, not the norm.
-
- Founder
- Posts: 11589
- Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:06 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
Re: any self-taught scientists?
Thread title
Taking the latter question first. You can absolutely accumulate the body of knowledge in a scientific field of someone getting a bachelor's degree. For most majors, the subject-specific coursework takes up around a quarter of the total course load. Doing it one class at a time and you can be done in 2-4 years depending on how hard you push it. The problem will be the lack of a lab component to the courses, which brings us to the question posed in the title. And where the scientists that have been replying have some issues.
What makes a scientist is the approach to understanding issues and solving problems. Textbook knowledge is necessary, but not sufficient. The approach is the scientific method, which can easily be understood in the abstract, but really needs to be applied to real problems to deeply understand the possibilities and limitations of science. IMO, a non-scientist can do this, but you've got to be creative about it without access to university facilities and professors to guide you. But what do I know? Like Dr. Science, I'm not a real Doctor, but I do have "a Masters Degree... in science!"
Original Postany self-taught scientists?
These are two very different questions. The disparate answers here depend on which of the questions the reply was focusing on.newbie001 wrote:Have any Bogleheads ever taught themselves a science, e.g., biology or chemistry? Not just read a textbook or two, but accumulated a body of knowledge that a college major has?
Taking the latter question first. You can absolutely accumulate the body of knowledge in a scientific field of someone getting a bachelor's degree. For most majors, the subject-specific coursework takes up around a quarter of the total course load. Doing it one class at a time and you can be done in 2-4 years depending on how hard you push it. The problem will be the lack of a lab component to the courses, which brings us to the question posed in the title. And where the scientists that have been replying have some issues.
What makes a scientist is the approach to understanding issues and solving problems. Textbook knowledge is necessary, but not sufficient. The approach is the scientific method, which can easily be understood in the abstract, but really needs to be applied to real problems to deeply understand the possibilities and limitations of science. IMO, a non-scientist can do this, but you've got to be creative about it without access to university facilities and professors to guide you. But what do I know? Like Dr. Science, I'm not a real Doctor, but I do have "a Masters Degree... in science!"
This answer is a little off topic, but I can honestly say even though I got my Chemical Engineering degree in 1979, at least 90% of the science and technology I know today was self taught or on the job training. The engineering and science schooling was a good start, but I need to experience, study, and think about these things for a long time before I really understand them. Here are my recommendations:
Get a monthly subscription to Scientific American (I hear Nature is also excellent) and read it cover to cover from now on, I have done this for at least 25 years.
Watch Nova and maybe Nature on PBS or on TV or online every week, I started watching Nova in 1979
Read a great science or math book regularly (this I have not done so diligently, but know it helps tons)
Anytime you find a topic interesting get online and research and read all about it. Striking while the iron is hot is a great way to really get into a topic.
Go back to school, especially if your employer will pay for it. I got my MBA degree when I was 48.
Get a monthly subscription to Scientific American (I hear Nature is also excellent) and read it cover to cover from now on, I have done this for at least 25 years.
Watch Nova and maybe Nature on PBS or on TV or online every week, I started watching Nova in 1979
Read a great science or math book regularly (this I have not done so diligently, but know it helps tons)
Anytime you find a topic interesting get online and research and read all about it. Striking while the iron is hot is a great way to really get into a topic.
Go back to school, especially if your employer will pay for it. I got my MBA degree when I was 48.
Are you interested in learning to do scientific research or just to learn the facts and theories of a particular scientific field?
Science is the method, it isn't the collection of facts. Science is the act of designing experiments with good controls, making observations, thinking about them and then repeating with new experiments. Many people drawn to science naturally think that way but others need mentors to guide them along.
Middle school and high school science classes often emphasize the facts as does popular culture, leading some people to think that the facts and case studies are the science. Even in undergrad, the textbooks contain case studies which illustrate the scientific method but doing actual new research in internships and summer jobs where you design your own experiments rather than relying on someone else to design them is where most students begin to really understand their field. Some students are able to leave their undergrad without having done their own original research but I think that does them a huge disservice.
There are many resources for learning amazing things about most scientific fields on the web and in books. But I would suggest that only by doing your own original research, perhaps guided by a mentoring advisor or senior students or a colleague at work, will you really understand your field.
Science is the method, it isn't the collection of facts. Science is the act of designing experiments with good controls, making observations, thinking about them and then repeating with new experiments. Many people drawn to science naturally think that way but others need mentors to guide them along.
Middle school and high school science classes often emphasize the facts as does popular culture, leading some people to think that the facts and case studies are the science. Even in undergrad, the textbooks contain case studies which illustrate the scientific method but doing actual new research in internships and summer jobs where you design your own experiments rather than relying on someone else to design them is where most students begin to really understand their field. Some students are able to leave their undergrad without having done their own original research but I think that does them a huge disservice.
There are many resources for learning amazing things about most scientific fields on the web and in books. But I would suggest that only by doing your own original research, perhaps guided by a mentoring advisor or senior students or a colleague at work, will you really understand your field.
-
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:13 pm
- Location: FL
http://www.khanacademy.org/#browse
Enjoy!
I registered for classes recently for another bachelors and I've been brushing up on my stat, algebra, calc etc at kahn academy. It bothers me immensely that I now have to spend $2000 on classes, not to mention several hundreds of dollars on books, when I've been learning all of this for free on the internet. But it's all about that sheet of paper so off to school I go.
Enjoy!
I registered for classes recently for another bachelors and I've been brushing up on my stat, algebra, calc etc at kahn academy. It bothers me immensely that I now have to spend $2000 on classes, not to mention several hundreds of dollars on books, when I've been learning all of this for free on the internet. But it's all about that sheet of paper so off to school I go.
- Opponent Process
- Posts: 5157
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:19 pm
I'm going to out on a limb and assume the OP is not interested in setting up a lab in the garage. it would most likely be prohibitively expensive to set up something that would produce, say, publishable research, but maybe not. for sure you couldn't readily give cocaine to rats, like I can, for example. that's primarily because I don't actually do scientific research, I simply work at an institute that receives grant money based on my ideas and leases me space so that I may try and keep my job as a scientist. it's not exactly like Pasteur did it back in the day.
30/30/20/20 |
US/International/Bonds/TIPS |
Average Age=37
Read the novel "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
A great way to learn about how scientists, engineers, and motorcycle mechanics think.
To give you a flavor of the book: it states on the first page that this book should not be confused with the vast scholarly literature on Zen Buddhist practice. It's not very accurate about motorcycles either.
In spite of this overly-modest opening, it will get you thinking critically, which is really what science is all about...
Next, read the non-fiction book "The Soul of a New Machine" which describes a team of software and hardware engineers designing a new computer (and playing a lot of video games while dodging around office politics along the way).
A great way to learn about how scientists, engineers, and motorcycle mechanics think.
To give you a flavor of the book: it states on the first page that this book should not be confused with the vast scholarly literature on Zen Buddhist practice. It's not very accurate about motorcycles either.
In spite of this overly-modest opening, it will get you thinking critically, which is really what science is all about...
Next, read the non-fiction book "The Soul of a New Machine" which describes a team of software and hardware engineers designing a new computer (and playing a lot of video games while dodging around office politics along the way).
Love many, trust few, and always paddle your own canoe
Interesting question.
I have a Bachelors in Physics and a Masters in Materials Science, so I can't claim to be self taught. It would take a tremendous amount of discipline to slog through the typical textbook and teach yourself, without the carrot and stick of the comaraderie of fellow students and the ramifications of a bad grade. I have had decent luck learning new technologies with community college courses, company sponsored technical workshops, and lately, online resources. Right now, I'm building a solar module from cells and supplies purchased off ebay, using youtube as an instructor. I'm also experimenting with App Inventor on Google to write an Android app.
Anyway, good luck with whatever approach you choose. Don't stop learning.
Doug
I have a Bachelors in Physics and a Masters in Materials Science, so I can't claim to be self taught. It would take a tremendous amount of discipline to slog through the typical textbook and teach yourself, without the carrot and stick of the comaraderie of fellow students and the ramifications of a bad grade. I have had decent luck learning new technologies with community college courses, company sponsored technical workshops, and lately, online resources. Right now, I'm building a solar module from cells and supplies purchased off ebay, using youtube as an instructor. I'm also experimenting with App Inventor on Google to write an Android app.
Anyway, good luck with whatever approach you choose. Don't stop learning.
Doug
I just finished designing and building an inexpensive 2D noncontact machine vision measurement tool. It was a great experience. I did it for a grad degree, but I would have done it on my own without degree as the carrot at the end of the stick as I am interested in the process.
I found two books on the subject of being a scholar without the academic credentials. In some fields it is tough to prove you know what you know without having (paying for) a degree.
Proving You're Qualified by Charles D. Hayes
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss? ... ed&x=0&y=0
The independent Scholar's Handbook by Ronald Gross
http://www.amazon.com/Independent-Schol ... 700&sr=1-1
I found two books on the subject of being a scholar without the academic credentials. In some fields it is tough to prove you know what you know without having (paying for) a degree.
Proving You're Qualified by Charles D. Hayes
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss? ... ed&x=0&y=0
The independent Scholar's Handbook by Ronald Gross
http://www.amazon.com/Independent-Schol ... 700&sr=1-1