Is a College Degree Important?
Thanks for your interesting article on science. I'd like to believe your statement, but I suspect this (your statement) is an idealism:
"If a scientist submits a paper to a reputable scientific journal ... the content of the paper is the only issue."
How did you determine that?
By being a scientist, of course. Even though I don't have a degree, in 1986 I was named "Scientist of the Year" by the Oregon Academy of Science, and I have never been asked to produce a degree in 30 years of publishing scientific and technical articles.
Many scientists eventually acquire a degree as a way to increase their status among uneducated people (or are granted honorary degrees), but this has no bearing on their status among scientists.
Notable autodidacts (self-taught people) include:
- Gottfried Liebniz, co-inventor of the Calculus.
- John Harrison, inventor of the marine chronometer that made possible accurate positions on the high seas.
- Anton Leeuwenhoek, "Father of Microbiology," involved in early development of the microscope.
- Ezra Cornell, founder of Cornell University.
- Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens), author and humorist.
Autodidact Benjamin Franklin taking his life in his hands.
(boys and girls, don't try this at home — ever!)
- Elias Howe, inventor of the sewing machine.
- Marie Curie, Nobel Prizewinner (twice: 1903, 1911).
- Orville and Wilbur Wright, inventors of the airplane.
- Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telegraph and telephone.
- Thomas Alva Edison, inventor of the electric light and the phonograph.
- Michael Faraday, responsible for fundamental research in electromagnetism.
- Oliver Heaviside, scientist, short-wave radio pioneer.
- Alfred Russell Wallace, co-developer of the Theory of Evolution.
- Sir Humphrey Davy, pioneering chemist.
- Benjamin Franklin, scientist and author, helped write the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Think kite, lightning, Leyden Jar, and see the image on this page.
- Philo Farnsworth, inventor of television.
- Alfred Nobel, scientist after whom the Nobel Prize is named.
- Srinivasa Ramanujan, mathematical genius who made pivotal contributions to number theory.
- Nicola Tesla, very influential scientist and technologist, credited with the invention of radio.
- Guglielmo Marconi, also credited with the invention of radio.
- George Westinghouse, developer and implementer of the alternating-current electrical scheme in wide use today.
- Walter Pitts of MIT, laid the foundations of cognitive sciences, artificial intelligence and cybernetics.
- Godfrey Hounsfield. Invented computer aided tomography (CAT) scanners, Nobel Prizewinner (1979).
- Karl Popper, very influential scientific philosopher.
- Albert Einstein, published one of two pivotal papers (special relativity) before acquiring a degree.
- Arthur C. Clarke, author and inventor of the geostationary satellite scheme.
- Richard E. Leakey, paleoanthropologist.
- Dean Kamen, medical technologist, inventor of the Segway personal transporter and the portable kidney dialysis machine.
- Osamu Shimomura, Nobel Prizewinner (2008).
- Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs, co-founders of Apple Computer, both self-taught.
- Sir Richard Branson, chairman and CEO of Virgin Atlantic, billionaire, philanthropist, world adventurer, high school dropout.
- Larry Ellison, co-founder and CEO of Oracle, college dropout.
- Bill Joy, creator of BSD Unix, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, college dropout.
- Larry Page and Sergey Brin, co-founders of Google, college dropouts.
- Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft, pretty rich guy, philanthropist, college dropout.
This list is by no means complete (or organized). The correlation between scientific and technical education and accomplishment is slight, and where it exists, the cause-effect relationship is indeterminate. The educational establishment does all it can to keep people from finding this out. One way educators do this is by awarding honorary degrees to successful scientists and technologists, thus bringing them into the fold ex post facto.
Addendum — a more complete list is located at: Autodidactic Hall of Fame.
Theories vs. Laws II
So — are you saying they've just been applied to the term laws by non-scientists and are actually theories?
I don't really understand your phrasing. I'm saying there aren't any laws in science, just hypotheses and theories.
just looking for clarification ... I'm actually going into chemical engineering, but we don't cover much general 'science theory' and just specific stuff related to the field
I'm sorry to hear that. Understanding science is rather important in modern times. If you don't understand science, some "expert" might come along say, "it's a scientific law!" and have his way with you. This kind of authoritarianism has nothing to do with science and can't be distinguished from religion.
I'll never figure out why educators won't teach just a little science while indoctrinating you. Oh, I guess I just answered my own question.
Thoughts on the Definition of Science
Your conversation with the person whom believes that psychology shold be seen as science has prompted a thought. I was wondering if the issues of Science would not be better served by a review of the definition, since there seems to be such a lack of understanding of the current definition.
We should review the definition of science because people don't understand the present one? That's how dictionaries work, it's not how science works. Dictionaries pay total attention to what people think words mean — that's a dictionary's purpose. But science has a higher calling and it can't be allowed to change just because people don't understand it.
If science didn't work, if science couldn't create lifesaving vaccines, spacecraft and lasers, that would be different. But science works, and it's not responsible for the fact that people don't understand it. The burden is on people to comprehend science, not on science to make itself comprehensible.
I put that question forward because the issues that arise from the formulation of a Hypothesis and then the falsification of that therory seems to essentially mean that the therory is true unless you can prove it doesn't.
Did you actually read the article you are replying to? This is not how science works. In science, an idea is assumed to be false unless and until there is evidence to support it.
In this, do we not create shadows and strawmen wasting as much as 95% of our resources of time and energy, effort and creativity that could be utilized much more efficiently?
That is a point I make in my article, almost word for word. Maybe you should read the article before making all its points over again.
Could we not observe our surroundings, develop an understanding of what is reality and utilize what we see as utilitarian and work with our realities to best utilize them?
That is science's purpose, and one of science's ground rules is to assume that a hypothesis is false until it has evidence. And this is covered in my article.
Instead of disproving an hypothesis should we not prove our observations, and use them to better our existance?
Okay, I see the problem. You are replying to the article's title, not its content. Please ... read ... the ... article.
http://arachnoid.com/what_is_science
I can't make a YouTube video to help you understand science. You have to read.