Science isn't a body of facts, science is a process for figuring out how the world works: you see something interesting, come up with an idea of why that might happen, and test you're idea to see if you're right. You repeat this process until you figure out why things happen the way they do, and then you use that knowledge to explain new things, or to do things that you couldn't do before.
So, when I tell you to think like a scientist, what I'm saying is to use that process, which is something anybody can do. You don't need to be good at math, or take a bunch of classes--you just need to observe the world around you, ask questions, and look for answers.
From Prof. Chad Orzel's Graduation Speech:
Comments
You like to piss everybody off for no purpose at all. I do not understand why you do this. You seem to be on a crusade of your own against incompetence in science, but who elected you to do that ? I do not think you are qualified for that task, honestly.
T.
Tommaso Dorigo | 06/29/09 | 04:11 AM
He was always pissed off by the political correctness that favours people with average lower IQs, like black people, gypsys, poor people, people who do not publish a lot, etc. They "steal" money and resources from the well deserved successful people, with higher IQs. Given that he thinks IQ is completely inheritable, helping such people with affirmative action measures or social security is a leeway to pollute the gene pool of the population and slow or destroy progress.
To summarize this in a political way, politicaly correct thought is curbing the freedom of people. For example, blames this "fact" for his leaving of harvard.
Anonymous (not verified) | 06/29/09 | 08:42 AM
Maybe Lubos is scuttling his internet competitor? :) Scienceblogs is so popular they are apparently giving up on Seed magazine to focus on it. It can't be long before they set up Scienceblogs Prague (okay, maybe not).
Hank Campbell | 06/29/09 | 08:58 AM
I think it is nice when
people tries methods used in other fields. These 3 string theorists
are trying to use LQG with SUSY:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.4978
Isn't that great? :)
Daniel Rocha | 06/29/09 | 09:08 AM
I guess it's the same as to say you don't need to be good at Latin to become an scholar specializing on Lucretius.
Innobel (not verified) | 06/29/09 | 11:02 AM
You don't need to be good at math, or take a bunch of classes--you just need to observe the world around you, ask questions, and look for answers.
"The scientists from Franklin to Morse were clear thinkers and did not produce erroneous theories. The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
Nikola Tesla, 1934
I'm useless at math. However, I do tend to question everything, which drives some people nuts. I also try to think both deeply and clearly, which puts me into conflict with established philosophical methods and drives lawyers nuts.
Patrick Lockerby | 06/29/09 | 11:48 AM
It would have been nice if he could have defined the process more clearly and accurately so that people could replicate it in their daily lives, otherwise, they might think they are using the scientific process when they aren't...
Bob Kamper (not verified) | 06/29/09 | 17:26 PM
Ad hominem arguments are instead the opposite of good "scientific" practice, and one can always do without them.
Anonymous (not verified) | 06/29/09 | 17:58 PM
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=chad-orzel