Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Is There No New "Einstein"?

scribd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–34 of 34 posts

Re: Why Is There No New "Einstein"?

#31

Post by mechanical_fish »

mixmax wrote: post #28
mechanical_fish wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many scientists with the capacity of Einstein have there been? Newton, maybe Aristotle and Archimedes. That's four in the last two thousand years. Look, I admire these guys as much as anyone. But Zombie Einstein himself would come back from the dead and smack you if he heard you claim that, e.g., Maxwell wasn't as smart as he was. Einstein figured out special relativity by staring at Maxwell's equations, after al…

If you ever write a book on popular science in that prose please let me know. I wan to buy it.

Well, one of my favorite science books ever is Molecular Biology Made Simple and Fun, and it reads kind of like this.

The science in the book is 100% serious, too, and at the approximate level of an intro course in college. I faked it for three years as a biophysics postdoc with the help of that book. Admittedly, the molecular biologists chuckled at my understanding of their field, the way you would chuckle at a precocious four-year-old, but at least I had a vague idea of what I didn't know.

Re: Why Is There No New "Einstein"?

#32

Post by mixmax »

mechanical_fish wrote: post #31
mixmax wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ever write a book on popular science in that prose please let me know. I wan to buy it.

Well, one of my favorite science books ever is Molecular Biology Made Simple and Fun , and it reads kind of like this. The science in the book is 100% serious, too, and at the approximate level of an intro course in college. I faked it for three years as a biophysics postdoc with the help of that book. Admittedly, the molecular biologists chuckled at my understanding of their field, the way you would chuckle at a pre…

Thanks for the tip - think I'll pick it up.

Re: Why Is There No New "Einstein"?

#33

Post by kirubakaran »

mechanical_fish wrote: post #31
mixmax wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ever write a book on popular science in that prose please let me know. I wan to buy it.

Well, one of my favorite science books ever is Molecular Biology Made Simple and Fun , and it reads kind of like this. The science in the book is 100% serious, too, and at the approximate level of an intro course in college. I faked it for three years as a biophysics postdoc with the help of that book. Admittedly, the molecular biologists chuckled at my understanding of their field, the way you would chuckle at a pre…

Thanks a lot. I was looking for a book like that.

Re: Why Is There No New "Einstein"?

#34

Post by yummyfajitas »

jamesbritt wrote: post #23
yummyfajitas wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, to my great surprise, "give my field more money" was only one of his suggestions. It was, in fact, the last suggestion of his, and (at least to my reading) least important. The rest of his answer is quite reasonable, and doesn't even need new money: 1. Seek out people with different points of view and invite them to join the discussion. 2. Give money/influence to individuals, not to large fiefdoms/research…

"Diversity of ideas is important, ..." Wouldn't that be, diversity of informed ideas is important? Why might it be that people with the background to have an informed opinion on something do not show greater diversity in those opinions? (Or maybe they are there, and politics keeps them out of the inner circle?)

>Why might it be that people with the background to have an informed opinion on something do not show greater diversity in those opinions?

For one reason or another, one viewpoint gets a leg up on the other one. After this, life is easier for those with the mainstream viewpoint, and new people join the establishment.

Case in point: I'm working on a paper right now in foundations of quantum mechanics. I did most of the work with Bohmian mechanics as my mental model (as a result of being exposed to a "deviant"). That viewpoint helped a lot, and I probably wouldn't have built my model without it. Note that the model is completely justifiable without it, but it's an unmotivated magic trick.

I've given talks about it from a non-standard perspective. People attack that. I've also talked about it, pretending it's black magic that yields a result everyone knows. People love that.

The result is the same, but I have an easier time promoting it if it looks mainstream.

It's no wonder people stick to the establishment. Even I'm going to stick to the establishment when it comes time to submit the paper.

Post reply on HN