Career: Independent Scientist.

[Zarathustra]

This is a fantasy of mine, but a rather outlandish one.

Yes.

 

[Spurgeon]

Lol at the INTJs in this thread. Boy, do you guys lack imagination!!!

I couldn't agree more with Kyuuei and Ygolo. It's not impossible, it's just difficult.

Dream big, my son.

Don't listen to these mental midgets.

 

[Randomnity]

Lol at the INTJs in this thread. Boy, do you guys lack imagination!!!

I couldn't agree more with Kyuuei and Ygolo. It's not impossible, it's just difficult.

Dream big, my son.

Don't listen to these mental midgets.

Most of what he said actually is objectively impossible, though. Without an unforeseen dramatic shift in the way the world is set up, anyway.

If he's willing to adjust his dream a little, something that could vaguely be described as "independent scientist" could be difficult but possible, given adequate income. As written however, the OP is impossible.

 

[Zarathustra]

Lol at the INTJs in this thread. Boy, do you guys lack imagination!!!

No, we just lack the ability to believe in bullshit.

 

[KDude]

LOL. Instead of ridiculing the poor kid, we could try to see if we can make it more realistic. Don't kill the entrepreneurial drive.

I thought I was encouraging him. Who's to say the world doesn't need more meth heads? Practically anything in ground transit would never be delivered, if it wasn't for meth. Not good.

OK, I'm beating this to death probably.

 

[Jaguar]

I'm lazy.

I noticed.

 

[rhinosaur]

What Zarathustra and Randomnity said.

Although I do vaguely remember a story about a dude who did theoretical physics while living in a van. But nobody pays you for that, unless you're actually a professor. Plus, good luck understanding any of it without a PhD.

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Garrett_Lisi

It seems he has risked everything on long-shot bets multiple times in order to sustain his lifestyle. Good luck.

 

[Green_Pine]

Do remember Rhinosaur that a Ph.D. or what have you does not actually confer any knowledge on a person.

Knowledge is knowledge no matter where it comes from.

For most, a college setting is the most efficient to it in a job pertaining manor.

 

[Randomnity]

Do remember Rhinosaur that a Ph.D. or what have you does not actually confer any knowledge on a person.

Knowledge is knowledge no matter where it comes from.

For most, a college setting is the most efficient to it in a job pertaining manor.

The piece of paper doesn't. The process of acquiring it? Hell yes it does. It's not just your research topic that you learn about while you're getting your phd.

It's possible to think scientifically without being trained, hypothetically, but it's kinda unlikely. You learn so much about experimental design, statistics, etc etc which yes, could be learned on your own if you knew what you were looking for, but it's hard to find a "learn to be a scientist in 8 easy steps!" tutorial online. Acquiring knowledge on scientific topics is incredibly easy. Acquiring accurate, current knowledge on how to do science effectively is not as easy, by a long shot.

 

[Coriolis]

It's possible to think scientifically without being trained, hypothetically, but it's kinda unlikely. You learn so much about experimental design, statistics, etc etc which yes, could be learned on your own if you knew what you were looking for, but it's hard to find a "learn to be a scientist in 8 easy steps!" tutorial online. Acquiring knowledge on scientific topics is incredibly easy. Acquiring accurate, current knowledge on how to do science effectively is not as easy, by a long shot.

It is quite possible. The history of science contains a number of autodidacts, such as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, the father of Russian space flight.

Times have changed even in the "short" time since Tsiolkovsky worked, however. Paper credentials are more important than ever; certification over qualification, legality over reality. Inefficient, but each of us must find a way to reach our goals in such a context, or the wherewithal successfully to subvert or overturn it.

INTJs don't lack imagination, but for most of us, it is not enough. We live to make our visions reality, not to keep them in our heads. The OP might benefit by considering why he wishes this sort of career, what kinds of advantages or accomplishments it will offer, and then by considering ways of obtaining comparable results using available resources.

 

[ygolo]

The piece of paper doesn't. The process of acquiring it? Hell yes it does. It's not just your research topic that you learn about while you're getting your phd.

It's possible to think scientifically without being trained, hypothetically, but it's kinda unlikely. You learn so much about experimental design, statistics, etc etc which yes, could be learned on your own if you knew what you were looking for, but it's hard to find a "learn to be a scientist in 8 easy steps!" tutorial online. Acquiring knowledge on scientific topics is incredibly easy. Acquiring accurate, current knowledge on how to do science effectively is not as easy, by a long shot.

Having worked in industry for quite some time, I've known PhD's who couldn't think their way through a technical problem unless they found the answer in some paper (or group of papers and textbooks), and high school kids who were sharp enough to think through really tough problems without having the ingredients of the solutions "come from on high" through reputable journals and textbooks.

There is even a joke in industry about those with PhD's just "Piling it on Higher and Deeper". There is some truth to the saying, because many of the PhD's have such narrow (though admittedly deep) knowledge bases that problems outside their expertise throw them for a loop. While less educated people tended to not be "experts" at anything, and used to tackling technical problems outside their scope.

Also, academia, in a large sense, is insular and incestuous in the way it generates ideas. I have only been back in school for a couple of months, and I have already had my fill of stories about the politics of publication, referees and reputation. There are always stories of how a well reputed individual espousing/denouncing an idea lead to many others essentially parrot the opinion to get publications, only to find out years later that they were all wrong.

Not to say that I don't see the value of going through a PhD program. I quit a rather lucrative career to start one. But believing that getting a PhD is the only way seems to lack perspective.

Science is not magic. Neither is statistics, nor experimental design. There ARE high school kids who do good science, and are rewarded for it every year. http://www.societyforscience.org/STS How did they learn to do it? There is an inherent logic to scientific thinking. Discoveries can and do come from anywhere.

Crackpottery and good science can come from the same person. It has for ages. Isaac Newton, perhaps the best physicist of all time, wasted a lot of his time on alchemy. Tesla was sometimes off his rocker, but was still one of the greatest inventors of all time. Edison also had wild theories that never panned out. Faraday knew little math, let alone statistics, but was one of the greatest experimentalists of all time.

I think the people stuck on the idea that formal training is the only way, are the very same ones going through, or having gone through such training. I am sure it is quite rigorous and difficult. It can seem like someone who hasn't gone through the same process is going to be hopelessly lost without it. "After all, it took ME so much time to get trained. How could someone possibly pick all that up without the training?"

But you could say the same thing about many human endeavors. People with MBAs often scoff at book like "The 10 day MBA", but there are plenty of people who run businesses without MBAs. There are trained actors who scoff at the untrained walk-ons who nevertheless become stars. There are many who have taken year after year of rigorous training in playing an instrument, only to be out-shone by some neophyte whose music people like.

If you are a chemist who graduated with just a B.S. and do industrial research for 10 years (working your way up from junior chemist), I think you will be as advanced as someone you earned a PhD (though keep in mind the PhD may only take you 5 years). Some very talented individuals may get to the same level of advancement in even less time than it would take to get a PhD.

 

[rhinosaur]

Do remember Rhinosaur that a Ph.D. or what have you does not actually confer any knowledge on a person.

Knowledge is knowledge no matter where it comes from.

For most, a college setting is the most efficient to it in a job pertaining manor.

Of course it is possible to teach yourself everything, if you are smart enough. Like I said, "good luck."


[MENTION=825]ygolo[/MENTION] : I agree that the process of getting a PhD does not necessarily help you to solve technical problems, and that it's more about depth than breadth.