I was reading a book on complexity theory and am really and truly fascinated and totally into it, when my mind started wandering and then got to thinking about "am I destined to be a better theoretical scientist ( whatever the hell that means) than a practical one ?" As it is I like to study things from a theoretical point of view, building new hypotheses and testing them ( preferably in my head and as soon as possible because I am too lazy to remember them and test them later and another reason for that is .. 'The Moment' is gone so it is no longer fun ), using concepts from one discipline somewhere else in a way that no sane person would even think of doing it. Essentially dreaming in the field of science and to answer any question, the first thing that jumps to me is make a theoretical model of it and see if it works. Whether it works in practice or not is not my problem. To add to that, am not really that interested in the practical things I have done in my PhD, but am very much interested in the concepts that are addressed by doing those things and reasons for doing those things. I am not interested in 'honing' my skills for doing a western or a southern. If it gets too much I would just get someone who can do it better to do it for me. I do NOT believe that expertise in a variety of techniques is a way to achieve greatness in science, but rather the ability to tell which experiments to do is more important. Being this way and in a lab where computation or any kind of theoretical construction is avoided with a furrow in the brow and pained look ( this may have some association with the ability to comprehend too much of imagniation, but that theory is yet untested.. :D ), I think I have stumbled upon a new method of research. I call it 'by the seat of one's pants' research.
We know what the meaning of the phrase is " doing something by the seat of one's pants" it is usually meant as 'not being very serious about something and taking risks willingly and gladly, goofing around not caring about the results.Often with total disregard to rules.' Obviously doing things this way will be frowned upon since it is often of no productive value. So it is... but in science they way I envisage, 'by the seat of one's pants' seems like a great idea... There is a higher chance of this happening in theoretical research simply because less money is involved. The way to do this type of science is simple :
1. Read lot of stuff till you find something that triggers your imagination ( for purposes of a coherent discussion let us say that imagination is restricted to ideas and not fantasies, though fantasies sometimes do help... )
2. If you like an idea, just incubate it.. keep it in your head and don't think about it.. suddenly sometime somewhere this idea will click with another and viola !! something interesting is already happening ( Until the viola happens.. you are still treading the road and not flying by the seat of your pants... And PLEASE DO NOT do anything to trigger or hasten the 'viola !!' stage. Otherwise the whole point is lost. Here is where the pants come in.. )
3. Now, we you get your viola!! done.. test it out in the computer or in your head, or in component space or wherever the hell you think it is the most fun and easiest to do. Don't worry about publishing it or convincing others of it or other such trivial things... and if it works.. IT is past the first stage...
4. Now the most important thing... now test it against known knowledge about whatever you are doing. If your idea has already been proved by someone else then ah!.. too bad but at least you are bright enough to think about it on your own. If it is going against whatever is being said by 'bigger' people then hmm.. one wonders, because obviously I am not wrong there must be something I haven't explained or thought about. So rethink your idea, do patch up jobs and these are not necessarily to solve the question that has arisen in the first place. More often that not the patch up jobs are more fun than the idea it self.. Who cares about convincing others or getting this published or written.. If it works in your head, if it is cohesive with each other not like sticky goo but like an array of light then waaah... that feeling is the most wonderful thing in the world. This is not a fantasy creation, be sure to test your idea against all that you can with the harshest of measures, but when you think it works, and literature says it does not... don't believe the literature, patch up your idea. Often to the extent that the original thing is unrecognisable but then it will become something really beautiful !!
Point no.4 is the 'seat' of my point. But there are severe warnings before doing this..
1. If you are worried about career or are otherwise bothered by thoughts of the future please do not go down this path
2. If you think you know everything and that a particular problem is solved please do not go down this path
3. If you want to work to get more funding please do no go down this path
4. If you are afraid this will lead you to 'loose your focus' and other trivial things, please do not go down this path
If the above 4 things do not apply to you please welcome to this amazing field of science. Experience the warm rush of thrill down one's spine when two seemingly unconnected ideas just melt into one like one wonders why were they ever separate. See the beauty of it all. Sadly people will not understand/like you, they will think you are mad, but are still favoured. they will say you are lazy and not work but still would wonder how you get things done to an equal extent as them. If you start wondering how to explain what is there in your head and start looking for alternative ways of communication.. the signs are clear.. you will soon take off and fly.. by the seat of your pants...
8 years ago
4 comments:
may be I am not that competent enough to understand this post...but never mind it is my limitation.I guess what I have understood from this post is a very good idea which one can possibly do when
1.he is rich
2.do not have any responsibilities or want to take one
3.Have lot of a time in life
4.so much intellectual that he did not need any one the above....
We need both types of people... the people who generate testable hypotheses and the ones who test them. It's good to be a part of both worlds, but as always, the people who specialise in either will be better than the ones who do both.
thanks a lot mr.mosi... that is true
Hmm ..interesting read.I agree with Mosi though..Generating a hypothesis requires the same creativity as developing techniques to prove/disprove it.What is to be celebrated...is the birth of thought...and a mind that is willing to play with new ideas!
Post a Comment