Holding it in...
If there is one character flaw that I have that I wish I could get rid of its my inability to 'let things go'. I'll have to work on it, but in the mean time...
About 6 years ago I came across a 'University of Dallas Alumni' discussion group on Yahoo. One of the threads that came up (being that it was 1999) was 'who was the greatest person of the last millenium?'. The regular cast of predictable names came up, Washington, Lincoln, Reagan (it was a UD board after all) etc. One person had the audacity to say Einstein or Newton (and no, it wasn't me). One of the big brains from UD posted a response that, quite frankly, stunned and pissed me off. Their response was (paraphasing here), "No scientist should be considered great because they only find what's already there".
Clearly this person rode the short bus to class.
I closed the browser and never returned.
Do you think that's true? No scientist can be considered great since 'they only find what's already there'? My opinion is that this person has no clue what a scientist does. They image some dude in a white lab coat saying "OH, THERE'S COLD FUSION! I left it under the couch. Let the Nobel committee know that I discovered cold fusion."
If I had to explain the modern scientific process to this person I would use the following analogy. You want to play at being a scientist? Here's the recipe.
1) Go to your local toy store. Buy eight or nine unique 2000-2500 piece jigsaw puzzles. (You know, the really hard ones.)
2) When you get home dump ALL the pieces from all the puzzles into a large bag.
3) Shake to stir.
4) Throw 3/4 of the pieces out.
5) Hand the remaining 1/4 of the pieces to someone who never saw the box lids and ask them to describe all the pictures on the puzzles boxes.
6) Tell them if they don't describe at least one of the pictures by next year they are fired.
This seemingly impossible task is what scientists face on a daily basis.
I would maintain that it takes a very special kind of a person, with either tremendous luck, extraordinary vision or unquestionable dedication to even approach this task. In other words it takes someone with a quality of greatness to succeed in science.
I truly admire and envy good scientists. I wish I were one.
I don't post this to brag up scientists, or put down other professions, but to merely answer that unknown UD graduate's assertion that scientists are nothing more than on a cosmic scavenger hunt.
"Honey, have you seen my grand unified theory? I had it a minute ago."
Now I can let that go...
About 6 years ago I came across a 'University of Dallas Alumni' discussion group on Yahoo. One of the threads that came up (being that it was 1999) was 'who was the greatest person of the last millenium?'. The regular cast of predictable names came up, Washington, Lincoln, Reagan (it was a UD board after all) etc. One person had the audacity to say Einstein or Newton (and no, it wasn't me). One of the big brains from UD posted a response that, quite frankly, stunned and pissed me off. Their response was (paraphasing here), "No scientist should be considered great because they only find what's already there".
Clearly this person rode the short bus to class.
I closed the browser and never returned.
Do you think that's true? No scientist can be considered great since 'they only find what's already there'? My opinion is that this person has no clue what a scientist does. They image some dude in a white lab coat saying "OH, THERE'S COLD FUSION! I left it under the couch. Let the Nobel committee know that I discovered cold fusion."
If I had to explain the modern scientific process to this person I would use the following analogy. You want to play at being a scientist? Here's the recipe.
1) Go to your local toy store. Buy eight or nine unique 2000-2500 piece jigsaw puzzles. (You know, the really hard ones.)
2) When you get home dump ALL the pieces from all the puzzles into a large bag.
3) Shake to stir.
4) Throw 3/4 of the pieces out.
5) Hand the remaining 1/4 of the pieces to someone who never saw the box lids and ask them to describe all the pictures on the puzzles boxes.
6) Tell them if they don't describe at least one of the pictures by next year they are fired.
This seemingly impossible task is what scientists face on a daily basis.
I would maintain that it takes a very special kind of a person, with either tremendous luck, extraordinary vision or unquestionable dedication to even approach this task. In other words it takes someone with a quality of greatness to succeed in science.
I truly admire and envy good scientists. I wish I were one.
I don't post this to brag up scientists, or put down other professions, but to merely answer that unknown UD graduate's assertion that scientists are nothing more than on a cosmic scavenger hunt.
"Honey, have you seen my grand unified theory? I had it a minute ago."
Now I can let that go...
posted by Carl at 1:19 PM
2 Comments:
Was Aquinas not great because he only found what was already there? That's an absolutely ridiculous by the idiot UDder.
Your jigsaw puzzle analogy is great. It reminds me of another quote, where someone said "research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing."
I'm actually surprised by the names mentioned. Speaking of Aquinas, where was his name? Do UDder's lose interest in the philosophy topics that held us spellbound when we were there, and if so to what extent? This issue is part of something I've given quite a bit of thought to for my own blog entry--wbat does a UD education mean to us now that we're more than a decade out.
I don't know about you, but I never found Aquinas particularly spellbinding.
jonathon
Post a Comment
<< Home