Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
yangxiao.cs.ua.edu
Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
1–10 of 119 posts
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#2I think it could be better titled "Don't Become an Academic Professional or Professional Scientist." They have good reasons for this.
Whereas, you can do science as a hobby in your spare time for free or up to your chosen budget. You can publish whatever you want on your web sites, social media, etc. You can often get advice or peer review from professional scientists by asking them. You might pay them for their time if you feel your work was worth it.
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#3(1999)
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#4(1999)
While this is clearly an old post, I'm not sure about the actual date. On the bottom it says 1999, but there's also a citation for an article from 2001.
> For many more details consult the Young Scientists' Network or read the account in the May, 2001 issue of the Washington Monthly.
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#5I think it could be better titled "Don't Become an Academic Professional or Professional Scientist." They have good reasons for this. Whereas, you can do science as a hobby in your spare time for free or up to your chosen budget. You can publish whatever you want on your web sites, social media, etc. You can often get advice or peer review from professional scientists by asking them. You might pay them for their time…
Feels to me a combination of old web with new web tricks is the key. People used to update obscure hobby details but there really was no way to donate. Creators didn't even think to bother to ask. All this democratization talk seems to be the solution.
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#6(1999)
The first copy of this essay captured by the Internet Archive was in October of 2001: https://web.archive.org/web/20011013031756/http://wuphys.wus...
The same timestamp at the bottom of the essay can be found on other pages by Professor Katz, such as his list of publications which includes papers from 2019. I suspect that the timestamp of 1999 is incorrect.
https://web.archive.org/web/20191206233227/https://web.physi...
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#7(1999)
The first copy of this essay captured by the Internet Archive was in October of 2001: https://web.archive.org/web/20011013031756/http://wuphys.wus... The same timestamp at the bottom of the essay can be found on other pages by Professor Katz, such as his list of publications which includes papers from 2019. I suspect that the timestamp of 1999 is incorrect. https://web.archive.org/web/20191206233227/https://web.physi…
[deleted]
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#8I think it could be better titled "Don't Become an Academic Professional or Professional Scientist." They have good reasons for this. Whereas, you can do science as a hobby in your spare time for free or up to your chosen budget. You can publish whatever you want on your web sites, social media, etc. You can often get advice or peer review from professional scientists by asking them. You might pay them for their time…
Feels to me a combination of old web with new web tricks is the key. People used to update obscure hobby details but there really was no way to donate. Creators didn't even think to bother to ask. All this democratization talk seems to be the solution.
I don't think crowdfunding is a good funding source for science in general. Crowdfunding's going to overemphasize already popular and easy to explain science at the expense of everything else. Boring sounding and unfamiliar stuff like the research I'd like to do would not succeed.
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#9I think it could be better titled "Don't Become an Academic Professional or Professional Scientist." They have good reasons for this. Whereas, you can do science as a hobby in your spare time for free or up to your chosen budget. You can publish whatever you want on your web sites, social media, etc. You can often get advice or peer review from professional scientists by asking them. You might pay them for their time…
> you can do science as a hobby in your spare time for free or up to your chosen budget
Not in many fields/subfields, unless "chosen budget" is some unattainable amount of disposable income.
Most people who want to do science have a specific field they are interested in. Your proposal is fine for theoreticians (and some computationalists, depending on the compute they require), but not many others.
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#10I wonder if this is a parallel trap for people who study PoliSci and want to go into government to make a difference.
Regardless, each career has a disillusionment curve — although yes in this case the financial reality of it (still is) is super unfortunate.
If I had to guess, probably mostly because it doesn’t fit in a nice capitalist box of money in / money out.