sticklebat t1_j3gv6ns wrote on January 8, 2023 at 2:06 PM

Reply to comment by Diogenic_Seer in For the émigré philosopher Imre Lakatos, science degenerates unless it is theoretically and experimentally progressive by ADefiniteDescription

> Yes and no. Classes are one of many ways to learn.

And yet I’ve never once met a person who has self-taught themselves in QM whose comprehension wasn’t riddled with misconceptions and glaring holes. Not all fields lend themselves to independent study, and I think QM is especially difficult to learn well without deliberate guidance and feedback. I suppose it is technically possible to get that outside of taking classes, but I think uncommonly enough to be safely neglected.

> Just spending at least 100-200 hours familiarizing with the materials of a field can be enough if time to find a genuine hole in scientific understanding.

That depends greatly on the field, though, and I think tends to become less and less true over time as scientific knowledge and understanding grows.

Diogenic_Seer t1_j3iizc9 wrote on January 8, 2023 at 8:38 PM

I don’t disagree. Outside of maybe the standard model, or Dirac’s equation, I don’t pretend I understand Quantum Mechanics. I tend to use visual models as a crutch when performing mathematics.

I’d just rather we not narrow learning paths. Workshops and essays still give a way to communicate with a teacher. As does interning. My own disdain for classes comes more from not wanting to deal with other students.

The 100-200 hours mark was meant to be ‘loose.’

Old knowledge can apply to newly researched fields. Pottery skills can translate to sculpting skills.

The soft sciences are still filled with holes. Holes that will not be filled for centuries.

I wouldn’t say it’s impossible for a neuroscientist to successfully breakdown a psychology theory with very little research placed in the field of psychology.