Decisions, decisions, best future path?

[Comp]

http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/279.page

http://archive.sciencewatch.com/jan-feb99/sw_jan-feb99_page2.htm

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=415643

http://archive.sciencewatch.com/jan-feb99/sw_jan-feb99_page1.htm

Look at the content of these 3 links. Especially the middle link is disturbing. In molecular biology, biochem and the like one cites a lot. Does this mean excessive time is spent just reading other people's research? I'm an aspiring scientist, and I want to spend as much time possible solving my own research, and not just making preparations for solving my own by reading other's works. I find that way the best to become a successful scientist. I also would like to avoid to the largest degree possible, teaching and paperwork and other mundane stuff. Anyone know how I can go about to avoid such things?


Mathematics and comp sci would be the best for me, if I'm interpreting the meaning of the data correctly. Also, doesn't comp sci, mathematics and theoretical phys have way more interesting and intensive stuff than chem, bio sciences and geo sciences? The math in the three later fields seem easy, just basic undergrad level petty much. Also, is econ worth considering? Again it seems like the math and challenge is lacking. Can a field even be called challenging if the math's simple? People say econ requires some other skill like psychology, but is this actually hard?


And then there's philosophy. Seems like a useless, dead field to me. The only still thriving is philosophy of language. Linguistics is different as it doesn't depend as much as on math as other fields, but still has its own rigourous system. But can a field really be impressive if like Noam C. are highly regarded in it? Even with the increasing rigour in linguistics, isn't it too young and simple compared to fields like phys and mathematics?


Nother thing I would like to know more about is job prospects. I hear dubious sayings about physics full, none becoming research mathematicians, CS is full of unexplored possibilities - any shred truth to such claims? How the job prospects in those other fields, econ, linguistics, geo science, bio sciences. Any type of info you can give on this, whether its statistics, degree of co-op required with other scientists, chance of ending up mediocre or horror stories - fill me in.

The field I got the worst impression of is medical science. Seems like competition is though with its standout plagiarism and it's almost law-of-the-jungle (In a deceptive way of course). Thanks in advance.

[apython1992]

I too am disturbed. While I suppose citations are beneficial in making an academic paper more likely to be acknowledged, I wouldn't ever agree to subject myself to that kind of tedious work. And the data seems to suggest what I've always believed; this is a bigger problem in biological sciences. However, academic papers do need to refer to original sources (one of the key concepts of science is that theories will raise more questions that will lead to new theories). Perhaps I'm only disturbed because I would never want to spend my academic career reading others' works, though it certainly is necessary. This is the kind of thing that makes it easy to decide whether you would like to stay in academia, or do your own thing, and innovate and create. As far as job prospects are concerned, there are probably more jobs available in biological sciences, but university programs in those departments are so saturated by kids who want to become doctors just to say they're doctors that it would be easy to just be another number, or a face in the crowd. I have a deep hatred for that kind of pretentious learning environment and it is my personal opinion that if you love something enough, you will succeed in it. I'm going into physics, fully aware that I could become a doctor and make a good amount of money and that physics doesn't hold as many job opportunities - and only because I love it. Tap into your interests and success will follow.

[DemonWasp]

If you're not prepared to read, you aren't prepared for science. There's a famous quote: "If I see far, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." The bit about "stand on the shoulders of giants" means "I read and understood a whole lot of papers by a whole lot of people who have accomplished great things." If you think for a second that Hawking or Einstein didn't read many papers, you are sadly mistaken.

If you don't read, and read a lot, then you will find that you are re-inventing the wheel. You will be duplicating research that, for better or worse, someone else has already done. Far better to read about their research and build upon it.

I would also suggest that the citation rates for mathematics and computer science may be smaller because the papers may choose to focus on a narrower subset of the field. In biology, it is incredibly difficult to pull out one thing to analyze separately, because you are studying an unbelievably complex system (life). In mathematics or computer science, you tend to be analyzing a new algorithm or problem, and you are allowed to reduce the algorithm or problem to the simplest possible form, something that isn't always possible in the "natural" sciences.


It's difficult to say which fields are more interesting, because that's a personal opinion. Clearly, plenty of people find computer science fascinating, but then there are plenty of people who think the same of chemistry, biology, or geology. I'm not sure what you mean by "intensive", but if you mean "difficult", then you're off-base: biology is ridiculously complex. Go read about Kreb's Cycle and think about how hard that would be to figure out, keeping in mind that you can't see any of that stuff. The math may not be hard, but then it isn't really the hard part -- there are plenty of other things that could count as the hard part.


Economics is a difficult field not because of the math involved (again, not the "hard part") but because the system has a huge level of complexity. To properly understand economics, you have to have a knowledge of psychology, industry, trade, world news, international relations, politics, business, law, etc. The field is complicated to such a degree that even experienced economists, many with PhDs, have a hard time predicting what will happen a week from now, let alone a year from now; somehow, they're frequently expected to predict what will happen 10-20 years from now.


I'm no fan of philosophy, but it's hardly a dead field. Pure philosophy might not be the most lively field, but I think you'll find that philosophy interacts with a lot of other disciplines, which is where the interesting bits come in. Consider the philosophy surrounding medical procedures (if I switch the left half of your brain with the left half of another person's brain, which one is you and which one is them? Assuming you both consented and we knew it would work, is this ethical? Which one of you is the one who is married with 3 kids?). Consider the philosophy of computer intelligence (At which point is a machine "alive"? At what point is a machine "human"? Is it ethical to build a computer that's smarter than any living human?).

Also, don't be hating on Noam Chompsky. He's pretty brilliant. Of course I don't agree with him on all points, but that doesn't mean he's worthy of scorn.


Job prospects are strong in computer science (particularly if you can actually program well). I can't comment on other fields.


Don't make the mistake of thinking that fields without difficult math are somehow simple.*


* You are permitted to think that getting a degree in the Arts is simple, because it is. This isn't the same as thinking that truly brilliant art is simple.

[yoursecretninja]

There really are no 'dead' fields because creative people can find purpose in just about anything, and by thinking laterally, can apply concepts learned in one area to a seemingly unrelated area... This is how many novel concepts or innovations are born. So in other words, a philosopher is not destined to philosophize nor is computer scientist destined to work in computation.

There is also no point in comparing the ease or challenge of one field to another. Ease and challenge are relative concepts for one thing. Also, many things look deceptively simple on the surface, only once you dig in deeper do you uncover all the complexity and beauty that is there.

Do not forget either that it takes all sorts for the world to go around. It's probably pretty safe to boldly assert that ALL fields influence one another. Thus, no matter what you study, if your work is great, it can have far reaching implications. For that reason it's highly valuable to have interests in other areas, whether it's a hobby or a second degree, it's good to understand an area other than the one in which you are primarily interested.

So my suggestion to you is that if you're trying to decide what to do with your life and your looking for a challenge, just do what you LOVE to do because you can find a challenge to tackle once you know where to look. To answer that question, you need introspection. Analysis of papers won't help you figure that one out.

[Comp]

Which bachelor degree allows one to reach the highest level of abstraction? I want challenge, and lots of it.

When it comes to research, what sciences would be more "clean" and orderly? Economics is an example of an unnorderly science. People can't seem to agree on anything there, not on how to conduct research, how to interpret findings, etc etc. Thus I also ask, which sciences are the least clean and orderly?

Also, which sciences have the most political bickering? By that I mean nepotism, faking research/plagiarism, people following the herd on certain theories, people fearing to come up with alternate theories due to potential backlash from others, etc.

[RandomLetters]

Comp @ Thu May 12, 2011 5:24 am wrote:

Which bachelor degree allows one to reach the highest level of abstraction? I want challenge, and lots of it.

When it comes to research, what sciences would be more "clean" and orderly? Economics is an example of an unnorderly science. People can't seem to agree on anything there, not on how to conduct research, how to interpret findings, etc etc. Thus I also ask, which sciences are the least clean and orderly?

Also, which sciences have the most political bickering? By that I mean nepotism, faking research/plagiarism, people following the herd on certain theories, people fearing to come up with alternate theories due to potential backlash from others, etc.

#1, 2 and 3:

http://xkcd.com/435/

[Homer_simpson]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "highest level of abstraction", but in general mathematics is pretty abstract but as far as challenging goes any field is challenging when you work at an advanced level.

again for "Clean and orderly" Pure mathematics and theoretical physics come to mind both of which are highly challenging and competitive fields.

and as far as political bickering goes.. I have no specific opinion on this issue but I'm biased in that social sciences are not as testable so all sorts of bogus has the potential be approved by peers for publishing but in physics for example you can not make bogus claims and have them approved.
Also there are certain numbers associated with our species on this planet that are exponential functions of time such as the rate of power our consumption or population growth etc.. incidentally the rate at which scientific papers are published are one of these numbers. therefore with such large number of papers being published there`s bound to be some that are bogus. But this should not really be a deciding factor in your decision for your future..

[Comp]

Well then, how does theoretical CS, geo sci, material sci and chemistry compare to theoretical physics, mathematical physics and pure mathematics in terms of challenge and abstraction?

[Homer_simpson]

Like I said almost any scientific field is challenging at an advanced level. geo sci, material sci and chemistry are mostly applied sciences. theoretical CS on the other hand can be very abstract.
you can always start university with an open ended major until you get a better feel for things. I switched my major 3 times until I got it right.

[mirhagk]

I would suggest getting into something like Artificial Intelligence, you can go it at from many different angles, do research in new ideas, or simple test variations of other ideas. There are nearly infinite different approaches to the field, so there are always new ideas for it.

I would suggest looking into Jeff Hawkins' approach to it, it seems one of the most promising.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oozFn2d45tg

Also the field is as abstract or pratical as you want it.

[Comp]

AI does indeed seem interesting, I'll make sure to give it a good look.

Secondly I'll ask a question along the same line as the one about abstractness: What field of science would overall be the most complex, and which ten (If you can list that many) subfield in math, physics and CS would be the most complex in this day and age? If any of this is looking to or has historically changed fast, then I would be happy if you could include a bit about that in your post as well. If you can provide list of the most complex subfields in sciences other than CS, physics and math then that would be good as well. Even better if you can compare different subfields, even across wholly different fields. I'm also interested in which field have a solid amount of both complexity and abstractness, and which have little of neither. How are things looking to change in the future, will any fields overtake others while other are left in the dust? Historical facts and views are also interesting for perspective.


Another question along those very same lines: Which sciences are more affected by epistemological problems. Economics seems like one, and I have a hard time taking it seriously. Seems like a bandwagon for predator capitalists to justify their moral wrongdoings. =/ I've heard neuroscience as well. Thoughts?

And yet another one of those questions. Which sciences are cutthroat? As stated in an earlier post, I got the impression that life sciences overall are much worse with plagiarism and backstabbing.


Now for another question. Experimental or theoretical physics? I've read that a generation of string theorists are retiring, without any of their theories ever having been tested by experimentalists. Seems pretty horrible, and that's a definite notch-down for me.

On the other hand, what type of problems can an experimentalist hope to solve? Don't they just run experiments and tinker with machines to test the theories of theorists?

Second question, considering string theorists are retiring without testing their stuff, does that make for a huge red flag for high energy and other very abstract elitist physics stuff? Sounds like it would be better to do more manageable-scale problems so that whatever theories one comes up with (I assume the research in question is a theorist here) can actually be confirmed right or wrong within a realistic timeframe.

Really, what kept those string theorists who are now retiring going for so many years anyways? Are they so dead sure of their own intuitions that they can just keep working, even when their theories may be totally wrong? It just sounds bad really. With all this made up junk, even though yeah sure making patterns and theories up can be fun as way of intellectual wanking, one still can't really know if one is actually reaching new levels of insight or not. It feels bad, knowing I might be just deluding my self. You may tell me to just keep to my fantasies exclusively - but no. I think happiness comes from both the material and mental realm. Also, of course, the fact that made-up useless **** won't be useful or sustainable in the long run, not a problem if you can keep the scam going for long enough to retire, but that risk's not worth it imo.

Also, does CS have similar scandals to the one I just listed?

[Homer_simpson]

for interesting and complex fields check out nano engineering ,biophysics and cosmology, Space engineering.
I have no opinion on economics or any other social science because i dont know enough.
experimental or theoretical? I would suggest you first dip your toes in the water and test your limits so you can have a better idea of what it is you like. Currently I'm working in an experimental physics research lab at my university and yes to a certain extent we play with cool toys and model our data but its not necessarily always to test the theories of theorists there's lots to be done in the field: sensors and other devices constantly improving with time, There are many world applications industrial and otherwise. A better way of looking at it maybe that experimentalists use theories to try to make useful products out of it. MRI machines are a good example of such a thing.

Also string theory is certainly not dead, Its called M-theory these days and there are still a number of theories who are active in the field. At the same time M-theory is not the only area of theoretical physics there are still many many unknowns in the world that theorists need to work out. Areas such as mysteries of cosmology, dark energy, dark matter, Black holes and other spacetime related phenomenon , the phenomenon of super conductivity and super fluidity a further understanding of quantum mechanical phenomenon such as entanglement etc..

and I'm not sure I would call any of the things you mentioned scandals, I would think that if you truely are interested in doing science you wont be concerned with such things.