Don't Become a Scientist (1999) • Hacker News Board

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#51

Post by bpodgursky » Sun, May 18, 2014, 8:49 PM UTC

dydx wrote: post #33

This guy also wrote an essay titled "In Defense of Homophobia": http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/defense.html

Let's please evaluate the current article on its own merits. I'm really tired of the new witch-hunt-as-acceptable mentality on here and the news.

It's frustrating reading the comments and seeing it filled with complaints about unrelated articles by the same author.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#52

Post by XorNot » Sun, May 18, 2014, 8:50 PM UTC

The exact advice I'd give to people today, having done just that.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#53

Post by frik » Sun, May 18, 2014, 8:51 PM UTC

Mr Katz, please remove the third party link to the "German" translation (http://uhrenstore.de/blog/seikeinwissenschaftler ). The translation is completely off - probably done using machine translation.

e.g. first two sentences:

  Don't Become a Scientist! 

  wrong: Sei kein Wissenschaftler!

  correct: Werde kein Wissenschaftler!


  Are you thinking of becoming a scientist? 

  wrong: Denken Sie an einen Wissenschaftler zu werden?

  correct: Spielen Sie mit dem Gedanken ein Wissenschaftler zu werden?

  or: Möchten Sie eine wissenschaftliche Karriere einschlagen?

(the uhrenstore.de website is a fake website - all blog articles are machine translated and makes no sense, probably part of a SEO link farm network)

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#54

Post by total » Sun, May 18, 2014, 8:59 PM UTC

msvan wrote: post #6

I wonder if/when this will happen to programmers. I keep thinking that the job market for programmers will be radically different in ten years, what with the enormous amount of people "learning to code" these days. He did however suggest people to become programmers in 1999, and if you followed his advice then, you would probably still be quite happy with that decision today.

Everyone is learning to code due to this massive movement of programming as of late, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will be learning to code effectively nor efficiently.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#55

Post by lvs » Sun, May 18, 2014, 9:05 PM UTC

i don't totally disagree with the article, but it's probably worth pointing out that this guy is apparently a "proud homophobe." great. one might question his judgement after reading this drivel.

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2010/05/washington...

http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/defense.html

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#56

Post by mshakya » Sun, May 18, 2014, 9:08 PM UTC

unmei wrote: post #4

daemonk wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am finishing up a phd in bioinformatics. This is accurate.

I just finished a PhD in Biochemistry. It's accurate (I got a job as a programmer)

how difficult or easy was for you to change field?

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#57

Post by doomrobo » Sun, May 18, 2014, 9:10 PM UTC

lvs wrote: post #55

i don't totally disagree with the article, but it's probably worth pointing out that this guy is apparently a "proud homophobe." great. one might question his judgement after reading this drivel. http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2010/05/washington... http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/defense.html

I understand your point and I'm in no way advocating homophobia, but isn't your point still ad hominem?

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#58

Post by tcheard » Sun, May 18, 2014, 9:11 PM UTC

lvs wrote: post #55

i don't totally disagree with the article, but it's probably worth pointing out that this guy is apparently a "proud homophobe." great. one might question his judgement after reading this drivel. http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2010/05/washington... http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/defense.html

How is that relevant???

Just because you have very extremist and incorrect views about something outside your profession, doesn't mean that you are automatically incorrect when talking about your profession.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#59

Post by nagrom » Sun, May 18, 2014, 9:12 PM UTC

UK-AL wrote: post #34

eshvk wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Programming leads to some serious concentrated rewards, while science leads only to dispersed rewards. Can you explain what you mean by this?

He means science is a public good, everybody wins when a scientist discovers some knowledge/cure/whatever.

But the scientist generally wins less than a programmer who has a moderately good year making a website to help people find other people who would like to walk their dog.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#60

Post by mturmon » Sun, May 18, 2014, 9:13 PM UTC

ColinWright wrote: post #22

Extensive discussion from 6 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=122106 Scott Aaronson's reply: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=312 That was submitted[0] six years ago, but got no discussion at all. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=123584 There have been many, many more occasions when this was submitted,

Totally right. Polarizing/absolutist proclamations like the OP tend to start noisy, unhelpful discussions on HN. It's even worse when (as here) the OP concerns a general topic where most HN readers have anecdotal evidence, but only anecdotal evidence.

This kind of outrageous statement can be kind of fun in a small group, at dinner or a bar, but not here (IMO).