Socialized Health Care in the USA

[--Pete]

Hi,

That's not fair.

What's not fair? Presenting a counterexample to your statement?

Sure there are other things that are relevant besides time spent . . .

Right. My point is that not only do those things exist, but that many of them are more important than the number of years spent in the field -- which your post seems to imply is the dominant factor.

. . . but he'd spent pretty much his entire life seriously studying physics.

He was 26 in 1905 when he published his special theory. Assume he started thinking about physics at 12. His "entire life" at that point consisted of 14 years. The problem had been around (and recognized) since 1864 when James Clerk Maxwell showed conclusively that light was an electromagnetic wave. During that 41 year period, people as renown as Maxwell, Lorentz, Poincaré, Lodge, Heaviside, Hertz, and FitzGerald (just to name some of the 'big guns') worked on the problem. Some of these for many years, and all with much more expedience than Einstein.

His mind helped but without the gruntwork even he couldn't get anywhere (imho).

Who's grunt work? His own? Yeah, sure, though by his admission it was *after* he'd figured out what was happening that the grunt work came -- in the development of the details of the theory and the derivation of the consequences.

Somebody else's grunt work? Not according to him. He claimed to be ignorant at the time of his 1905 publication of most of the work others had done on the electromagnetic problem. In his papers on that topic in that year, he does not reference any previous work. He maintained this position for the remainder of his life. Given that he was usually very generous in his allocation of credit, his claims are very believable.

He was a member of the academia, . . .

He was a clerk in the Bern patent office, the best position he could get because of his terrible academic record.

. . . was doing his Ph.D. at the time, . . .

Actually completed it that year. On this point you are at least close to correct.

. . . and was in constant dialogue with other scientists . . .

Nope. His primary circle of friends with whom he did interact did not contain any top level scientists or mathematicians. Indeed, other than their relation to Einstein during his Bern years, they are all complete unknowns. And, as an insignificant and poorly regarded graduate student, none of the luminaries in his field would have given him much attention at that time.

. . . so even the counterexample isn't analogous to people taking up climate research as a(n?) hobby.

Since the counterexample was to the claim that experience is the key requirement for credibility, I think it is excellent. Sorry that I didn't prove what I did not set out to prove. To discredit my argument because it fails to do what it was never designed to do is what's really 'not fair' here.

Sheer luck? He had two important discoveries in his lifetime (that I know of) so again serendipity played a role but he picked up on what was going on.

So what. Had he had a million discoveries due to logic, the one due to luck still proves my point -- that experience is *not* the only, or even the most important, element in success or progress.

. . . someone with no experience in the field doesn't even have one year of experience.

Yes. But since no one is speaking of anyone who has *no* experience in the field, your comment is specious. The point is that there is, at best, only a very weak correlation between experience and expertise. An extreme example is Motzart and Scarlatti. Scarlatti had the training, the experience; but Motzart had the talent.

And, for a great example of scientific self delusion, see the story of N-rays. And that was not even for funding:)

--Pete