Diogenic_Seer t1_j3eusru wrote
Reply to comment by IAloneTheyEverywhere in For the émigré philosopher Imre Lakatos, science degenerates unless it is theoretically and experimentally progressive by ADefiniteDescription
Yes and no. Classes are one of many ways to learn.
I really despise how undergrad classes can’t be easily avoided by taking a large test or writing a large thesis. It’s a lot easier to avoid classes at every other level of education. It genuinely find it authoritarian.
Just spending at least 100-200 hours familiarizing with the materials of a field can be enough if time to find a genuine hole in scientific understanding. Naive discovery does happen. There were a lot of individuals that mused on continental drift before hard evidence was found. You could describe those early papers as more philosophical than scientific. https://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/step2012/participant/PlateTectonicHistory-1.pptx
You don’t need deep geological understanding to sort out that the continents kind of look like puzzle pieces.
That said, almost all philosophy of quantum science papers I have read have been utter bullshit.
sticklebat t1_j3gv6ns wrote
> Yes and no. Classes are one of many ways to learn.
And yet I’ve never once met a person who has self-taught themselves in QM whose comprehension wasn’t riddled with misconceptions and glaring holes. Not all fields lend themselves to independent study, and I think QM is especially difficult to learn well without deliberate guidance and feedback. I suppose it is technically possible to get that outside of taking classes, but I think uncommonly enough to be safely neglected.
> Just spending at least 100-200 hours familiarizing with the materials of a field can be enough if time to find a genuine hole in scientific understanding.
That depends greatly on the field, though, and I think tends to become less and less true over time as scientific knowledge and understanding grows.
Diogenic_Seer t1_j3iizc9 wrote
I don’t disagree. Outside of maybe the standard model, or Dirac’s equation, I don’t pretend I understand Quantum Mechanics. I tend to use visual models as a crutch when performing mathematics.
I’d just rather we not narrow learning paths. Workshops and essays still give a way to communicate with a teacher. As does interning. My own disdain for classes comes more from not wanting to deal with other students.
The 100-200 hours mark was meant to be ‘loose.’
Old knowledge can apply to newly researched fields. Pottery skills can translate to sculpting skills.
The soft sciences are still filled with holes. Holes that will not be filled for centuries.
I wouldn’t say it’s impossible for a neuroscientist to successfully breakdown a psychology theory with very little research placed in the field of psychology.
IAloneTheyEverywhere t1_j3g6fw9 wrote
I agree that undergrad course aren’t enough, and I was being a bit hyperbolic given how complex high level science is. I agree that spending time studying these subjects is extraordinary- 200 plus hours as you said. I definitely agree that that vast majority of QM Phil is quite bad. I guess I was just angry about most QM phil which led to such a harsh response.
Diogenic_Seer t1_j3im5i7 wrote
No. It makes general sense. I wasn’t calling you out specifically
It’s more just a sweeping annoyance for class structures.
It’s not a particularly popular annoyance to have with higher education.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments