I can concede that Herb and Eric had reasonable alternative views.
Is that what you are asking for, mart?
Charlie
mart wrote:
> time for consensus (or 'nonviolent communication'). stupid or s/(uper)/mart?
>
> --- On Mon, 5/25/09, Eric Entemann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>> From: Eric Entemann <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Stupidity as a virtuein sicience
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Date: Monday, May 25, 2009, 12:35 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> #yiv2068052402 .hmmessage P
>> {
>> margin:0px;padding:0px;}
>> #yiv2068052402 {
>> font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
>>
>>
>>
>> I had the same reaction as Herb...
>>
>>
>>> Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 11:55:41 -0400
>>> From: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Stupidity as a virtuein sicience
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>> Gee Charlie, i had a different reaction and sent it
>>>
>> out to a number of
>>
>>> demoralized grad students. I assumed that the value
>>>
>> of their grasping
>>
>>> that what makes them feel pretty clever as they earn
>>>
>> the privilege of
>>
>>> grad school is their ignorance of how vast is the
>>>
>> amount that they don't
>>
>>> know and probably never will, while what makes them
>>>
>> feel stupid in grad
>>
>>> school is simply coming to grips with reality--that
>>>
>> value is greater
>>
>>> than one more example of how arrogant many scientists
>>>
>> are.
>>
>>> herb
>>>
>>> Charles Schwartz wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is awful. I couldn't read the whole
>>>>
>> thing without retching.
>>
>>>> Such exuberant expressions of superiority!
>>>>
>>>> Charlie (one Schwartz to another)
>>>>
>>>> Michael H Goldhaber wrote:
>>>>
>> http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/121/11/1771
>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>> First published online May 20, 2008
>>>>> doi: 10.1242/10.1242/jcs.033340
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>>>> /Journal of Cell Science/ 121, 1771 (2008)
>>>>> Published by The Company of Biologists
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> <http://www.biologists.com/web/cob_copyright.html>
>> 2008
>>
>>>>> This Article
>>>>> Right arrow **Full Text* (PDF)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> <http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/121/11/1771>*
>>
>>>>> Right arrow *Alert me when this article
>>>>>
>> is cited
>>
>> <http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/alerts/ctalert?alertType=citedby&addAlert=cited_by&saveAlert=no&cited_by_criteria_resid=joces;121/11/1771&return_type=article&return_url=http%3A%2F%2Fjcs.biologists.org%2Fcgi%2Fcontent%2Ffull%2F121%2F11%2F1771>*
>>
>>
>>>>> Right arrow *Alert me if a correction is
>>>>>
>> posted
>>
>> <http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/alerts/ctalert?alertType=correction&addAlert=correction&saveAlert=no&correction_criteria_value=121/11/1771&return_type=article&return_url=http%3A%2F%2Fjcs.biologists.org%2Fcgi%2Fcontent%2Ffull%2F121%2F11%2F1771>*
>>
>>
>>>>> Services
>>>>> Right arrow *Email this article to a
>>>>>
>> friend
>>
>> <http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/mailafriend?url=http%3A%2F%2Fjcs.biologists.org%2Fcgi%2Fcontent%2Ffull%2F121%2F11%2F1771&title=The+importance+of+stupidity+in+scientific+research>*
>>
>>
>>>>> Right arrow *Similar articles in this
>>>>>
>> journal
>>
>> <http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/search?qbe=joces;121/11/1771&journalcode=joces&minscore=5000>*
>>
>>
>>>>> Right arrow *Similar articles in PubMed
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> <http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/external_ref?access_num=18492790&link_type=MED_NBRS>*
>>
>>
>>>>> Right arrow *Alert me to new issues of
>>>>>
>> the journal
>>
>> <http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/alerts/etoc>*
>>
>>>>> Right arrow *Download to citation manager
>>>>>
>> <http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/citmgr?gca=joces;121/11/1771>*
>>
>>>>> Right arrow *reprints & permissions
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> <http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/external_ref?&link_type=PERMISSIONDIRECT>*
>>
>>
>>>>> Citing Articles
>>>>> Right arrow *Citing Articles via Google
>>>>>
>> Scholar
>>
>> <http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/external_ref?access_num=http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/121/11/1771&link_type=GOOGLESCHOLAR>*
>>
>>
>>>>> Google Scholar
>>>>> Right arrow *Articles by Schwartz, M. A.
>>>>>
>> <http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22author%3AM.%20A.+author%3ASchwartz%22>*
>>
>>
>>>>> Right arrow *Search for Related Content
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> <http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/external_ref?access_num=http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/121/11/1771&link_type=GOOGLESCHOLARRELATED>*
>>
>>
>>>>> PubMed
>>>>> Right arrow *PubMed Citation
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> <http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/external_ref?access_num=18492790&link_type=PUBMED>*
>>
>>
>>>>> Right arrow *Articles by Schwartz, M. A.
>>>>>
>> <http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/external_ref?access_num=Schwartz+MA&link_type=AUTHORSEARCH>*
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>>>> Essay
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The importance of stupidity in scientific
>>>>>
>> research
>>
>>>>> *Martin A. Schwartz*
>>>>>
>>>>> Department of Microbiology, UVA Health
>>>>>
>> System, University of
>>
>>>>> Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22908, USA
>>>>>
>>>>> /e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>/
>>
>>>>> /Accepted 9 April 2008/
>>>>>
>>>>> I recently saw an old friend for the first
>>>>>
>> time in many years.^ We
>>
>>>>> had been Ph.D. students at the same time,
>>>>>
>> both studying science,^
>>
>>>>> although in different areas. She later
>>>>>
>> dropped out of graduate^
>>
>>>>> school, went to Harvard Law School and is now
>>>>>
>> a senior lawyer^ for a
>>
>>>>> major environmental organization. At some
>>>>>
>> point, the
>>
>>>>> conversationturned to why she had left
>>>>>
>> graduate school. To my utter
>>
>>>>> astonishment,^ she said it was because it
>>>>>
>> made her feel stupid.
>>
>>>>> After a couple^ of years of feeling stupid
>>>>>
>> every day, she was ready
>>
>>>>> to do something^ else.
>>>>>
>>>>> I had thought of her as one of the brightest
>>>>>
>> people I knew and^ her
>>
>>>>> subsequent career supports that view. What
>>>>>
>> she said bothered^ me. I
>>
>>>>> kept thinking about it; sometime the next
>>>>>
>> day, it hit^ me. Science
>>
>>>>> makes me feel stupid too. It's just that
>>>>>
>> I've gotten^ used to it. So
>>
>>>>> used to it, in fact, that I actively seek
>>>>>
>> out^ new opportunities to
>>
>>>>> feel stupid. I wouldn't know what to do^
>>>>>
>> without that feeling. I
>>
>>>>> even think it's supposed to be this^
>>>>>
>> way. Let me explain.
>>
>>>>> For almost all of us, one of the reasons that
>>>>>
>> we liked science^ in
>>
>>>>> high school and college is that we were good
>>>>>
>> at it. That^ can't be
>>
>>>>> the only reason – fascination with
>>>>>
>> understanding^ the physical world
>>
>>>>> and an emotional need to discover new things^
>>>>>
>> has to enter into it
>>
>>>>> too. But high-school and college science^
>>>>>
>> means taking courses, and
>>
>>>>> doing well in courses means getting^ the
>>>>>
>> right answers on tests. If
>>
>>>>> you know those answers, you do^ well and get
>>>>>
>> to feel smart.
>>
>>>>> A Ph.D., in which you have to do a research
>>>>>
>> project, is a whole^
>>
>>>>> different thing. For me, it was a daunting
>>>>>
>> task. How could I^
>>
>>>>> possibly frame the questions that would lead
>>>>>
>> to significant^
>>
>>>>> discoveries; design and interpret an
>>>>>
>> experiment so that the^
>>
>>>>> conclusions were absolutely convincing;
>>>>>
>> foresee difficulties^ and
>>
>>>>> see ways around them, or, failing that, solve
>>>>>
>> them when^ they
>>
>>>>> occurred? My Ph.D. project was somewhat
>>>>>
>> interdisciplinary^ and, for
>>
>>>>> a while, whenever I ran into a problem, I
>>>>>
>> pestered^ the faculty in
>>
>>>>> my department who were experts in the
>>>>>
>> various^ disciplines that I
>>
>>>>> needed. I remember the day when Henry Taube^
>>>>>
>> (who won the Nobel
>>
>>>>> Prize two years later) told me he didn't^
>>>>>
>> know how to solve the
>>
>>>>> problem I was having in his area. I was^ a
>>>>>
>> third-year graduate
>>
>>>>> student and I figured that Taube knew^ about
>>>>>
>> 1000 times more than I
>>
>>>>> did (conservative estimate). If^ he
>>>>>
>> didn't have the answer, nobody did.
>>
>>>>> That's when it hit me: nobody did.
>>>>>
>> That's why it was a research^
>>
>>>>> problem. And being /my/ research problem, it
>>>>>
>> was up to me to solve.^
>>
>>>>> Once I faced that fact, I solved the problem
>>>>>
>> in a couple of^ days.
>>
>>>>> (It wasn't really very hard; I just had
>>>>>
>> to try a few things.)^ The
>>
>>>>> crucial lesson was that the scope of things I
>>>>>
>> didn't know^ wasn't
>>
>>>>> merely vast; it was, for all practical
>>>>>
>> purposes, infinite.^ That
>>
>>>>> realization, instead of being discouraging,
>>>>>
>> was liberating.^ If our
>>
>>>>> ignorance is infinite, the only possible
>>>>>
>> course of action^ is to
>>
>>>>> muddle through as best we can.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to suggest that our Ph.D.
>>>>>
>> programs often do students^ a
>>
>>>>> disservice in two ways. First, I don't
>>>>>
>> think students are^ made to
>>
>>>>> understand how hard it is to do research. And
>>>>>
>> how very,^ very hard
>>
>>>>> it is to do important research. It's a
>>>>>
>> lot harder^ than taking even
>>
>>>>> very demanding courses. What makes it
>>>>>
>> difficult^ is that research is
>>
>>>>> immersion in the unknown. We just don't^
>>>>>
>> know what we're doing. We
>>
>>>>> can't be sure whether we're asking^
>>>>>
>> the right question or doing the
>>
>>>>> right experiment until we get^ the answer or
>>>>>
>> the result. Admittedly,
>>
>>>>> science is made harder^ by competition for
>>>>>
>> grants and space in top
>>
>>>>> journals. But apart^ from all of that, doing
>>>>>
>> significant research is
>>
>>>>> intrinsically^ hard and changing
>>>>>
>> departmental, institutional or
>>
>>>>> national policies^ will not succeed in
>>>>>
>> lessening its intrinsic
>>
>>>>> difficulty.
>>>>>
>>>>> Second, we don't do a good enough job of
>>>>>
>> teaching our students^ how
>>
>>>>> to be productively stupid – that is, if we
>>>>>
>> don't feel^ stupid it
>>
>>>>> means we're not really trying. I'm
>>>>>
>> not talking about^ `relative
>>
>>>>> stupidity', in which the other students
>>>>>
>> in the class^ actually read
>>
>>>>> the material, think about it and ace the
>>>>>
>> exam,whereas you don't. I'm
>>
>>>>> also not talking about bright people^ who
>>>>>
>> might be working in areas
>>
>>>>> that don't match their talents.^ Science
>>>>>
>> involves confronting our
>>
>>>>> `absolute stupidity'. That^ kind of
>>>>>
>> stupidity is an existential
>>
>>>>> fact, inherent in our efforts^ to push our
>>>>>
>> way into the unknown.
>>
>>>>> Preliminary and thesis exams^ have the right
>>>>>
>> idea when the faculty
>>
>>>>> committee pushes until^ the student starts
>>>>>
>> getting the answers wrong
>>
>>>>> or gives up and^ says, `I don't
>>>>>
>> know'. The point of the exam isn't
>>
>>>>> to see if^ the student gets all the answers
>>>>>
>> right. If they do, it's
>>
>>>>> the^ faculty who failed the exam. The point
>>>>>
>> is to identify the
>>
>>>>> student's^ weaknesses, partly to see
>>>>>
>> where they need to invest some
>>
>>>>> effort^ and partly to see whether the
>>>>>
>> student's knowledge fails at
>>
>>>>> a^ sufficiently high level that they are
>>>>>
>> ready to take on a
>>
>>>>> research^ project.
>>>>>
>>>>> Productive stupidity means being ignorant by
>>>>>
>> choice. Focusing^ on
>>
>>>>> important questions puts us in the awkward
>>>>>
>> position of being^
>>
>>>>> ignorant. One of the beautiful things about
>>>>>
>> science is that^ it
>>
>>>>> allows us to bumble along, getting it wrong
>>>>>
>> time after time,^ and
>>
>>>>> feel perfectly fine as long as we learn
>>>>>
>> something each time.^ No
>>
>>>>> doubt, this can be difficult for students who
>>>>>
>> are accustomed^ to
>>
>>>>> getting the answers right. No doubt,
>>>>>
>> reasonable levels ofconfidence
>>
>>>>> and emotional resilience help, but I think
>>>>>
>> scientific^ education
>>
>>>>> might do more to ease what is a very big
>>>>>
>> transition:^ from learning
>>
>>>>> what other people once discovered to making
>>>>>
>> your^ own discoveries.
>>
>>>>> The more comfortable we become with being
>>>>>
>> stupid,^ the deeper we
>>
>>>>> will wade into the unknown and the more
>>>>>
>> likely^ we are to make big
>>
>>>>> discoveries.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> Insert movie times and more without leaving
>> Hotmail®. See
>> how.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
|
